Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[waterloowarrior]

I'm still a big fan of the Chiarelli plan (NS,EW, Montreal, Carling).. but doing something is better than starting over again.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

The best way to do it is to do it slowly over, say, 15 years, while remaining committed to it. Double-tracking the existing O-Train line (with an extension only as far as the Airport) would be a good start, then piece by piece work on the east-west line. An interim BRT in the tunnel might work, as long as all the stations and trackage are fully capable of an easy transition to LRT.

As for those monetary variations, it has to do with ridership more than anything. If all the Transitway ridership (and nothing else) converted to LRT ridership, there would be over 160,000 passengers riding on a typical weekday. That would rank it 3rd among systems in North America.

No, just no. First of all, it was shown many times that a higher ridership and new users would be obtained by converting the South-East Transitway, while being at a lower cost. This is why city council has redirected staff to study this.

Also, there is no EASY conversion from BRT to LRT, this is why the city is in its current mess. It costs basically the same to create a new line from scratch. The problem was always ROW avaibility and operations costs. This is why in this case, the conversion to LRT is being done.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

No, just no. First of all, it was shown many times that a higher ridership and new users would be obtained by converting the South-East Transitway, while being at a lower cost. This is why city council has redirected staff to study this.

Also, there is no EASY conversion from BRT to LRT, this is why the city is in its current mess. It costs basically the same to create a new line from scratch. The problem was always ROW avaibility and operations costs. This is why in this case, the conversion to LRT is being done.

Interesting, that might be an idea as well, while keeping the current O-Train line as is (shutting it down creates a gap in the system to a major trip generator).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Interesting, that might be an idea as well, while keeping the current O-Train line as is (shutting it down creates a gap in the system to a major trip generator).

Especially when you can easily upgrade the frequency to 7.5 minutes, and electrify the line, all for a tenth in price of the original plan.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Especially when you can easily upgrade the frequency to 7.5 minutes, and electrify the line, all for a tenth in price of the original plan.

I'm not too sold on electrifying the lines though. The biggest downside is reliability, during events such as ice storms, blizzards and severe thunderstorms that can knock out power, it can knock the core of the entire system out, and they certainly won't have enough buses to make up the shortfall. There would need to be a contingency plan.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I'm not too sold on electrifying the lines though. The biggest downside is reliability, during events such as ice storms, blizzards and severe thunderstorms that can knock out power, it can knock the core of the entire system out, and they certainly won't have enough buses to make up the shortfall. There would need to be a contingency plan.

And how far did the buses go? If there wasn't a contingency plan for missing buses in snowstorms, and for a 2 month strike, you can't forget about the rest. Plus trains are more reliable in snow then buses could ever be.

[lrt's friend]

Exactly how does converting the Transitway to LRT bring in new ridership? This has always mystified me. It does NOT provide any better service than today. In fact, service will be less frequent. This is exactly the problem with the current plan and adding more expensive Transitway conversion and service disruption doesn't help make it any better. Furthermore, running rapid transit south only to the airport does not address south end transportation issues in any way. Airport service is a frill that mainly serves visitors to the city. That is ok with me except we can't do that at the expense of service for people who are actually local taxpayers.

Cost savings should be a side benefit of building rapid transit, but if there is no improvement in service, why in the world would we be spending $billions of tax money???????????????? If cost savings is the only benefit, then scap the plan. It will take a hundred years to recover the capital cost, if ever.

Has anybody wondered why we haven't received a provincial commitment for this plan while Toronto plans get a funding commitment even before the Environmental assessments have been completed? I think our Provincial politicians are waiting for our mayor to leave office in hope that a more sensible plan evolves that actually delivers service improvements and new ridership. How many times do we have to be told that funding is dependent on plans that will generate 'substantial new ridership'? This is a lot different from high ridership that keeps getting presented in reports. Who cares if we have high ridership if little or none of it is new ridership? As long as we don't have a credible plan that achieves certain reasonable goals, the province (and likely the feds) will continue to stall. As a watchdog of our tax money, this is a wise approach.

It is time to press the RESET button again, and return to the Chiarelli plan including its east-west components and correct its flaws. I have never understood why it was determined that we had to blow up the old plan instead of fixing its flaws. Another example of an incompetent mayor, City Council and city staff that don't know how in the world to design a better transit system.

A new plan needs to address minimum conditions. Does it speed up service? Does it attract new ridership? Does it increase transit capacity where necessary? Every portion of a new plan must work towards these goals. It is pure stupidity to develop a plan that does not deliver better service for 25 years using the excuse that we can't do better and we have wait for a better transit foundation to be built first. Nonsense!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Exactly how does converting the Transitway to LRT bring in new ridership? This has always mystified me. It does NOT provide any better service than today. In fact, service will be less frequent. This is exactly the problem with the current plan and adding more expensive Transitway conversion and service disruption doesn't help make it any better. Furthermore, running rapid transit south only to the airport does not address south end transportation issues in any way. Airport service is a frill that mainly serves visitors to the city. That is ok with me except we can't do that at the expense of service for people who are actually local taxpayers.

It adds capacity, which is needed. Of course service will be less frequent, but the 2 minutes headways for light metro are nowhere seen for a starting frequency. For once, comfort takes precedence on time. For the South, it has been shown many times that the current and future population there doesn't have necessary ridership for LRT. It was again put as a compromise not to convert the Transitway, even if Transitway ridership is 10x higher.

Cost savings should be a side benefit of building rapid transit, but if there is no improvement in service, why in the world would we be spending $billions of tax money???????????????? If cost savings is the only benefit, then scap the plan. It will take a hundred years to recover the capital cost, if ever.

Actually, it will be 50 years, which is acceptable in this case. Especially if gas prices go up, it could be well shorter than that. It's not only for cost benefit, it's capacity. The problem I have with the current plan is to build more Transitway that will be converted in the future. It costs a fortune to build, and no mistake has been learned.

Has anybody wondered why we haven't received a provincial commitment for this plan while Toronto plans get a funding commitment even before the Environmental assessments have been completed? I think our Provincial politicians are waiting for our mayor to leave office in hope that a more sensible plan evolves that actually delivers service improvements and new ridership. How many times do we have to be told that funding is dependent on plans that will generate 'substantial new ridership'? This is a lot different from high ridership that keeps getting presented in reports. Who cares if we have high ridership if little or none of it is new ridership? As long as we don't have a credible plan that achieves certain reasonable goals, the province (and likely the feds) will continue to stall. As a watchdog of our tax money, this is a wise approach.

What would be that marvelous plan? That's the problem, you can complain about the current one as you want, but at least it will be used by more people than the previous one. The "substantial new ridership" was nowhere to be found it the previous plan either, and that was a major complain as well.

For comparison, the Millenium line extension to UBC will get funding, but won't generate many new users, though it will speed up the service. The mistake was to develop the BRT system in its own ROW, while many cities are putting signal change automation for the lights, and using a on-street ROW, this basically gives the same system for a lot less.

It is time to press the RESET button again, and return to the Chiarelli plan including its east-west components and correct its flaws. I have never understood why it was determined that we had to blow up the old plan instead of fixing its flaws. Another example of an incompetent mayor, City Council and city staff that don't know how in the world to design a better transit system.

There is always the cost factor. In the original plan, the E-W would have even lower ridership than the N-S line and that For 2G$? There results last year showed that the ridership for that corridor is not even worthy for a commuter train. Plus there was no way to have TOD in that corridor, because it's still used for heavy rail.

A new plan needs to address minimum conditions. Does it speed up service? Does it attract new ridership? Does it increase transit capacity where necessary? Every portion of a new plan must work towards these goals. It is pure stupidity to develop a plan that does not deliver better service for 25 years using the excuse that we can't do better and we have wait for a better transit foundation to be built first. Nonsense!

What would that magical plan would be? The only way to deserve the most people at a reasonable cost, is to convert the Transitway up to the suburbs. If you can have a new plan that would be faster than the Transitway and higher ridership, with no transfers, please bring it forward.

[MalcolmTucker]

Why is it impossible to have TOD in a corridor with active heavy rail?

Calgary has numerous examples of LRT, heavy rail, and TOD coexisting.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Why is it impossible to have TOD in a corridor with active heavy rail?

Calgary has numerous examples of LRT, heavy rail, and TOD coexisting.

There are environmental laws saying you can't put certain types of housing or industry because of possible spillage issues.

This problem is actually derailing the Train de l'Est in MTL. Because they are not permitting heavy rail in these sectors after the BAPE studies, they need to reconfigure their plans.

Anyways, what is frustrating, are the double standards. There will be more ridership from to Kanata than the previous N-S or E-W lines, but no, Kanata must settle for BRT, because the ridership is too low. I just don't understand city staff.

[MalcolmTucker]

What environmental laws? Provincial or possibly municipal? Since they don't seem to apply to Calgary.

Yeah, the city should likely phase something like this:
LRT to Kanata + Tunnel as far east as you can go without knocking out the SE transit way. With the relieved Albert & Slater it should work for the SE for some time longer.

You would have to force a transfer for the SW transitway people, but they would be no worse off than what the plan is now. (You would possibly short turn at least part of your trains there, as that is the future start of a spur anyways) Once people are used to LRT operation and design, future lines, spurs and especially stations I hope would not be forced into super over design.

[lrt's friend]

Why do we continue to focus on only peak hour service? I thought LRT was designed to encourage off-peak useage. With its limited coverage and less frequent trains (no way will there be a train every 2 minutes on Saturday or even mid-day), how will this attract more people downtown than today? Ha, there isn't even a Park n Ride lot on the east-west route to encourage suburbanites to use the train during off-peak hours. Despite the overwhelming support of the Albert/Slater coalition, I can actually see the number of Rideau Centre visitors arriving by transit declining as we eliminate direct service to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans.

If the Evergreen line is going to produce faster service, don't you think that will generate more riders in time? In our case, we are not offering faster service, nor even new service of any kind.

Comfort ................... ha ........................ Don't you realize how crowded those trains will be during peak periods? That is not comfort.


Why do we assume that we will get maximum service frequency from Day 1? And even then, it will only be 6-9 am and 3-6 pm.

Since when does a plan (there actually was a ridership study) that was estimated to have 40,000+ riders per day not enough for LRT? We do not need subway levels of passenger traffic to consider LRT a success.

Part of the problem with analysis of the old plan is that there was a desire to discredit it. The O-Train was expected to be a failure too and was called the nowhere to nowhere train. As we can see, it proved the naysayers wrong. A train that connected the Kanata Business Park with Orleans and several business parks in between and Algonquin College would not be a failure. LRT on Carling and Monreal Road would not be a failure. We wouldn't need a train every 2 minutes, but it would certainly draw new ridership. I didn't say the old plan was perfect and could be improved, but it did make a serious attempt to get drivers out of their cars. The new plan focuses on the captive downtown commuter market, that is already well served for the most part.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why do we continue to focus on only peak hour service? I thought LRT was designed to encourage off-peak useage. With its limited coverage and less frequent trains (no way will there be a train every 2 minutes on Saturday or even mid-day), how will this attract more people downtown than today? Ha, there isn't even a Park n Ride lot on the east-west route to encourage suburbanites to use the train during off-peak hours. Despite the overwhelming support of the Albert/Slater coalition, I can actually see the number of Rideau Centre visitors arriving by transit declining as we eliminate direct service to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans.

If the Evergreen line is going to produce faster service, don't you think that will generate more riders in time? In our case, we are not offering faster service, nor even new service of any kind.

Comfort ................... ha ........................ Don't you realize how crowded those trains will be during peak periods? That is not comfort.


Why do we assume that we will get maximum service frequency from Day 1? And even then, it will only be 6-9 am and 3-6 pm.

Since when does a plan (there actually was a ridership study) that was estimated to have 40,000+ riders per day not enough for LRT? We do not need subway levels of passenger traffic to consider LRT a success.

Part of the problem with analysis of the old plan is that there was a desire to discredit it. The O-Train was expected to be a failure too and was called the nowhere to nowhere train. As we can see, it proved the naysayers wrong. A train that connected the Kanata Business Park with Orleans and several business parks in between and Algonquin College would not be a failure. LRT on Carling and Monreal Road would not be a failure. We wouldn't need a train every 2 minutes, but it would certainly draw new ridership. I didn't say the old plan was perfect and could be improved, but it did make a serious attempt to get drivers out of their cars. The new plan focuses on the captive downtown commuter market, that is already well served for the most part.

The LRT that was planned for Carling and MTL Rd is a streetcar, not genuine LRT. So no, no speed or service enhancement there either. Anyways, just go read my pages and pages of old comments, your comments didn't changed, so mine won't either.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The LRT that was planned for Carling and MTL Rd is a streetcar, not genuine LRT. So no, no speed or service enhancement there either. Anyways, just go read my pages and pages of old comments, your comments didn't changed, so mine won't either.

Have I said that the old plan didn't need improvement? And what does the new plan include? A Carling streetcar, still!

[Richard Eade]

Just an interesting point:

The projected cost of the Baseline Station is $207M. This is due to the 'need' to bury both a train station and a Bus Transitway. The Transitway is 'needed' so that Barrhaven people don't need to transfer to a train at Baseline, only to transfer to a bus at Queensway or Lincoln Fields to get to Kanata.

What if the folks from Barrhaven were on a train from Fallowfield? The bus would not need to go north of Baseline, because no bus would even travel from Fallowfield to Baseline. A simple surface rail station would suffice at Baseline. Yes, people would have to transfer twice, but there would be a long enough ride on the train to make it worth-while.

So if a surface rail station were built for, say, $25M, then the remaining $182M could be used to convert the route from Baseline to Fallowfield to rail. The amount used to estimate the conversion costs of the W-E Transitway are about $22M/Km (including stations): The distance from Baseline to Fallowfield is about 6.5Km. Thus $143M - let's round that up to $150M - will convert the route. That leaves over $30M for moving Woodroffe around those townhomes and adding barricades to cross-roads.

The only reason the cost is so high for Baseline Station is to create a buried rail terminus transfer station. If that were not needed, the rail could be extended to Fallowfield for roughly the same cost.

Something to think about.

PS Has anyone besides me wondered why there are expensive pedestrian overpasses (which the City is on the hook to pay for!) needed over the courtyard which will cover the Baseline tunnel? It's almost as if the buildings and bridges were designed before the transitway was buried and no-one altered the design after the change.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Just an interesting point:

The projected cost of the Baseline Station is $207M. This is due to the 'need' to bury both a train station and a Bus Transitway. The Transitway is 'needed' so that Barrhaven people don't need to transfer to a train at Baseline, only to transfer to a bus at Queensway or Lincoln Fields to get to Kanata.

What if the folks from Barrhaven were on a train from Fallowfield? The bus would not need to go north of Baseline, because no bus would even travel from Fallowfield to Baseline. A simple surface rail station would suffice at Baseline. Yes, people would have to transfer twice, but there would be a long enough ride on the train to make it worth-while.

So if a surface rail station were built for, say, $25M, then the remaining $182M could be used to convert the route from Baseline to Fallowfield to rail. The amount used to estimate the conversion costs of the W-E Transitway are about $22M/Km (including stations): The distance from Baseline to Fallowfield is about 6.5Km. Thus $143M - let's round that up to $150M - will convert the route. That leaves over $30M for moving Woodroffe around those townhomes and adding barricades to cross-roads.

The only reason the cost is so high for Baseline Station is to create a buried rail terminus transfer station. If that were not needed, the rail could be extended to Fallowfield for roughly the same cost.

Something to think about.

PS Has anyone besides me wondered why there are expensive pedestrian overpasses (which the City is on the hook to pay for!) needed over the courtyard which will cover the Baseline tunnel? It's almost as if the buildings and bridges were designed before the transitway was buried and no-one altered the design after the change.

Of course, if we extend LRT to Barrhaven (doesn't that sound familiar), then the people of Kanata and Orleans will be upset ................... again. Me first. We have a political problem that originated with the last plan, and the result, we'd rather build hugely expensive transfer stations than have to deal with such decisions about where to run LRT first to the suburbs. If our politicians had stood there ground the last time around, this would no longer be a problem. We would base our decisions on sensible choices, such as building an extension over an overpriced transfer station.

We are developing some odd choices in our transit planning. Building Park n Ride lots long before there is rapid transit to a location. Now building LRT stations years before there will be LRT.

[Richard Eade]

Another thought:

The conversion of the Bus Transitway from Hurdman to Blair is going to cost about $160M. (Actually it might cost considerably more if the Blair Station rail terminus transfer station is not a simple one - which I doubt it will be.) The TMP Update also includes a plan to build a new Bus Transitway from Hurdman to Blair ($88M), plus the extension past Blackburn Hamlet ($20M) plus the stretch to 10th Line (less than the distance shown in the TMP Update) ($40M). This is a new Transitway of about 16 Kilometres.

Interestingly, the premium for new rail construction over new busway seems to be about $10M/Km: If the roughly $160M being used to convert the Bus Transitway from Blair to Hurdman were instead used to lay rail along 16Km of new train line from Hurdman, through the Hospital Complex, along the Cumberland Transitway route to 10th Line, the cost would be roughly the same.

Food for thought.

PS Isn't it interesting that there is a Hydro substation at the east end of the Browning Corridor. It will have to be moved for a busway, but could be used for the train.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Another thought:

The conversion of the Bus Transitway from Hurdman to Blair is going to cost about $160M. (Actually it might cost considerably more if the Blair Station rail terminus transfer station is not a simple one - which I doubt it will be.) The TMP Update also includes a plan to build a new Bus Transitway from Hurdman to Blair ($88M), plus the extension past Blackburn Hamlet ($20M) plus the stretch to 10th Line (less than the distance shown in the TMP Update) ($40M). This is a new Transitway of about 16 Kilometres.

Interestingly, the premium for new rail construction over new busway seems to be about $10M/Km: If the roughly $160M being used to convert the Bus Transitway from Blair to Hurdman were instead used to lay rail along 16Km of new train line from Hurdman, through the Hospital Complex, along the Cumberland Transitway route to 10th Line, the cost would be roughly the same.

Food for thought.

PS Isn't it interesting that there is a Hydro substation at the east end of the Browning Corridor. It will have to be moved for a busway, but could be used for the train.

According to our experts, it is heresy to suggest investing in a new LRT corridor instead of converting the Transitway.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why do we continue to focus on only peak hour service? I thought LRT was designed to encourage off-peak useage. With its limited coverage and less frequent trains (no way will there be a train every 2 minutes on Saturday or even mid-day), how will this attract more people downtown than today? Ha, there isn't even a Park n Ride lot on the east-west route to encourage suburbanites to use the train during off-peak hours. Despite the overwhelming support of the Albert/Slater coalition, I can actually see the number of Rideau Centre visitors arriving by transit declining as we eliminate direct service to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans.

If the Evergreen line is going to produce faster service, don't you think that will generate more riders in time? In our case, we are not offering faster service, nor even new service of any kind.

Comfort ................... ha ........................ Don't you realize how crowded those trains will be during peak periods? That is not comfort.


Why do we assume that we will get maximum service frequency from Day 1? And even then, it will only be 6-9 am and 3-6 pm.

Since when does a plan (there actually was a ridership study) that was estimated to have 40,000+ riders per day not enough for LRT? We do not need subway levels of passenger traffic to consider LRT a success.

Part of the problem with analysis of the old plan is that there was a desire to discredit it. The O-Train was expected to be a failure too and was called the nowhere to nowhere train. As we can see, it proved the naysayers wrong. A train that connected the Kanata Business Park with Orleans and several business parks in between and Algonquin College would not be a failure. LRT on Carling and Monreal Road would not be a failure. We wouldn't need a train every 2 minutes, but it would certainly draw new ridership. I didn't say the old plan was perfect and could be improved, but it did make a serious attempt to get drivers out of their cars. The new plan focuses on the captive downtown commuter market, that is already well served for the most part.

Except in the Central Transitway, buses do not run every 2 minutes now outside of rush hour. My guess for the frequency would be if fully built out:

East LRT (to Orleans) - 6 minutes at rush hour, 12 minutes at most other times

West LRT (to Kanata) - 6 minutes at rush hour, 12 minutes at most other times

Southwest LRT (to Barrhaven) - 6 minutes at rush hour, 12 minutes at most other times

Southeast LRT (to Airport) - 6 minutes at rush hour, 12 minutes at most other times

Cumberland LRT (Millennium to downtown) - 7/8 minutes at rush hour, 15 minutes at most other times

Combined sections:

Lincoln Fields to Bayview - 3 minutes at rush hour, 6 minutes at most other times

Bayview to Hurdman - 2-3 minutes at rush hour, 5 minutes at most other times

Hurdman to Blair - 3-4 minutes at rush hour, 7 minutes at most other times

Shorter trains would be used on weekends if demand is lower.

[p_xavier]