The future of Ottawa's Transit

[Rathgrith]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

But in Europe, children don't fling themselves in front of oncoming trains and protesters don't walk in front of them either.

It isn't rocket science; Lie down on the tracks and, within the headway time, you will most certainly perish. Oh, sure, someone might have the brains to do so, but it is something that people get used to, just like cars on the road.

I am convinced that most people on this forum have the education to not jump in front of fast-moving vehicles and Ottawa is one of the most educated cities in North America, so I think we can handle Trams.

Wow! What a great generalization!

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

My guess was Hartwells, but Leitrim is more likely.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

It should be known that for the most part, running lines in medians of roads is now not the style. It forces you to build much more extensive stations, and doubles your train-car interactions compared to choosing one side of the road vs the other.

The extensive stations point I'll grant - the new to-the-side McKnight-Westwinds CTrain station is a lot less extensive than the median Whitehorn Station just down the line - but a doubling in train-car interactions?

Take the Calgary West LRT example. It runs to the north of 17th Ave. So we have the following interactions (described based on car movement):
1-West to north (right turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-North to south (across 17th)
5-North to west (right turn onto 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

If it were in the median, this is what there would be:
1-West to south (left turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-South to west (left turn onto 17th)
5-North to south (across 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

In both cases, there are six. Four are common in both. Any difference in number of conflicts would be dependent on the particulars of the intersection in the vehicle movements of the non-common interactions - so it would be hard to get a doubling of the total from the difference in non-common interactions alone.

Still, I think I prefer the side alignment option to the median option where feasible (it may or may not be on Carling).

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Dado

The extensive stations point I'll grant - the new to-the-side McKnight-Westwinds CTrain station is a lot less extensive than the median Whitehorn Station just down the line - but a doubling in train-car interactions?

Take the Calgary West LRT example. It runs to the north of 17th Ave. So we have the following interactions (described based on car movement):
1-West to north (right turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-North to south (across 17th)
5-North to west (right turn onto 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

If it were in the median, this is what there would be:
1-West to south (left turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-South to west (left turn onto 17th)
5-North to south (across 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

In both cases, there are six. Four are common in both. Any difference in number of conflicts would be dependent on the particulars of the intersection in the vehicle movements of the non-common interactions - so it would be hard to get a doubling of the total from the difference in non-common interactions alone.

Still, I think I prefer the side alignment option to the median option where feasible (it may or may not be on Carling).

Oh, it is just in Calgary, the roads that the lines run parallel to are for the most part a far higher order of road that the roads that are crossed at level crossings. The perpendicular roads are far less busy (if they are not, there is most often a grade separation). One of the problems with median running are left turn bays on the main road, which consistently back up. With side running, you can choose which side will block the least amount of traffic.

This pattern should hold if LRT systems parallel busy commuter routes (not saying that all designs are logical in this way, but they should be for the most part)

It also depends what you consider median running to be. The median the trains run on 36th St NE in Calgary are exclusive ROW with 100% signal priority. This is unlike median running on St Claire or Spadina in Toronto which is solely protected by a bit of raised pavement and is still subject to traffic controls.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

The extensive stations point I'll grant - the new to-the-side McKnight-Westwinds CTrain station is a lot less extensive than the median Whitehorn Station just down the line - but a doubling in train-car interactions?

Take the Calgary West LRT example. It runs to the north of 17th Ave. So we have the following interactions (described based on car movement):
1-West to north (right turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-North to south (across 17th)
5-North to west (right turn onto 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

If it were in the median, this is what there would be:
1-West to south (left turn off 17th)
2-East to north (left turn off 17th)
3-South to north (across 17th)
4-South to west (left turn onto 17th)
5-North to south (across 17th)
6-North to east (left turn onto 17th)

In both cases, there are six. Four are common in both. Any difference in number of conflicts would be dependent on the particulars of the intersection in the vehicle movements of the non-common interactions - so it would be hard to get a doubling of the total from the difference in non-common interactions alone.

Still, I think I prefer the side alignment option to the median option where feasible (it may or may not be on Carling).

Carling is the worst option IMO, considering the fact such a line would be served by multiple routes and would have trains like every 3 minutes at rush hour. That necessitates full grade separations. A partially-trenched alignment along Richmond/Byron is best IMO.

In the suburbs, at-grade intersections may be acceptable as trains would be less frequent reducing operational and safety problems somewhat.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ three minute frequency does not require full grade separation, just full transit priority. Of course that would make the road hell for all other traffic, but it would sure be cheap! You could also close almost all cross streets, aming them only 'right in right outs'.

Of course it isn't the best solution, but it would work. Hell, the bad traffic might even drive ridership numbers.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

^ three minute frequency does not require full grade separation, just full transit priority. Of course that would make the road hell for all other traffic, but it would sure be cheap! You could also close almost all cross streets, aming them only 'right in right outs'.

Of course it isn't the best solution, but it would work. Hell, the bad traffic might even drive ridership numbers.

I agree with Kyle; the majority of intersections along Carling could be blocked and maybe RIRO with the possibility of an unsignalled left-in as well.

[p_xavier]

I'll even throw a bone. Elevated rail is cheaper than at-grade LRT, that is when the LRT is a streetcar. Because of all utilities removal, road reconstruction, it can get expensive. This was brought up many times during the first N-S LRT project, because the costs didn't include all road work before installing LRT.

While with elevated rail, you just need to put a concrete column.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'll even throw a bone. Elevated rail is cheaper than at-grade LRT, that is when the LRT is a streetcar. Because of all utilities removal, road reconstruction, it can get expensive. This was brought up many times during the first N-S LRT project, because the costs didn't include all road work before installing LRT.

While with elevated rail, you just need to put a concrete column.

What, like a monorail?!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

What, like a monorail?!

Or SkyTrain, or Chicago L...

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Carling is the worst option IMO, considering the fact such a line would be served by multiple routes and would have trains like every 3 minutes at rush hour. That necessitates full grade separations.

While I don't think Carling would be a good place for a rapid transit corridor due to the pressure to add more stops (and also because it will take forever to do all the studies, design work and property acquisition - the RoW needs to be widened by a few metres, thus taking a tiny chunk of land from hundreds of properties, so think interminable negotiations and appeals), I also don't subscribe to the "it must be fully graded-separated" mentality. Indeed, the grade-separate mentality would probably add more delays since the usual suspects would be out in force demanding the thing be trenched/buried, etc. Anyway, here are the intersections, from east to west, that absolutely have to be grade-separated:
-Fisher/Holland/Island Park (maybe as far east as Parkdale)
-Queensway/Kirkwood
-Woodroffe/Woodroffe
For consideration:
-Parkdale (also depends on routing - if alignment is south of Carling between Fisher and O-Train trench there's no issue)
-Merivale
-Maitland
The rest can be dealt with by preemption (or is it preëmption? need that diaeresis to indicate separate pronunciation of the second 'e' ) since turning traffic on those aren't enough to create insurmountable problems. It might, as Kyle says, screw up traffic, but the idea is to prioritize moving people by transit.

A partially-trenched alignment along Richmond/Byron is best IMO.

Only Woodroffe absolutely needs an underpass - a duckunder without a stop in the dip. Stations would be placed east at Lockhart and west at New Orchard. Richmond would probably have an underpass but doesn't strictly need one so long as it is a "clean" crossing without an intersection complicating things. The case for Richmond having an underpass really relates to how it gets from the Transitway trench to the Richmond corridor in the first place. No way would an at-grade alignment across Rochester Field be acceptable to the locals and coming in at Cleary would require climbing up from the grade of the parkway corridor to remain "at grade" anyway, so staying low in both cases is clearly preferable.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'll even throw a bone. Elevated rail is cheaper than at-grade LRT, that is when the LRT is a streetcar. Because of all utilities removal, road reconstruction, it can get expensive. This was brought up many times during the first N-S LRT project, because the costs didn't include all road work before installing LRT.

While with elevated rail, you just need to put a concrete column.

That kind of depends on what those concrete columns are going to sit on. If utilities are located under the would-be footings, then they have to be relocated. I don't know what's beneath the median of Carling but I doubt it's completely empty.

That said, elevated rail is generally cheaper than tunnelized rail and may be cheaper than trenched as well. I can't imagine it would be a very positive urban environment though.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

That kind of depends on what those concrete columns are going to sit on. If utilities are located under the would-be footings, then they have to be relocated. I don't know what's beneath the median of Carling but I doubt it's completely empty.

That said, elevated rail is generally cheaper than tunnelized rail and may be cheaper than trenched as well. I can't imagine it would be a very positive urban environment though.

Well your example about the width of ROW available on Carling is a good example where elevated rail would be more suitable, as it wouldn't be require more land.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

That kind of depends on what those concrete columns are going to sit on. If utilities are located under the would-be footings, then they have to be relocated. I don't know what's beneath the median of Carling but I doubt it's completely empty.

That said, elevated rail is generally cheaper than tunnelized rail and may be cheaper than trenched as well. I can't imagine it would be a very positive urban environment though.

Some might argue a 4 lane road isn't a "positive urban environment" either. I'd be on your side if we were talking about a quiet residential street, but Carling is a major road.

[Aylmer]

D

Originally Posted by Franky

Some might argue a 4 lane road isn't a "positive urban environment" either. I'd be on your side if we were talking about a quiet residential street, but Carling is a major road.

Have you ever been to Champs Élisés (like 6 or 8 lanes)? Or Avenue de l'Opéra? Or 5th Ave?
Heck, even BOUL. Des Allumétières looks nice!

It has to be done right, but it can look beautiful.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

D

Have you ever been to Champs Élisés (like 6 or 8 lanes)? Or Avenue de l'Opéra? Or 5th Ave?
Heck, even BOUL. Des Allumétières looks nice!

It has to be done right, but it can look beautiful.

In the case of Allumetieres, I don't like it that much, as it acts as a gap between a 100 km/h freeway and a 90 km/h expressway. It works well now, but if Aylmer and northern Hull continue to grow a lot, then capacity issues could become a problem.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dado

Only Woodroffe absolutely needs an underpass - a duckunder without a stop in the dip. Stations would be placed east at Lockhart and west at New Orchard. Richmond would probably have an underpass but doesn't strictly need one so long as it is a "clean" crossing without an intersection complicating things. The case for Richmond having an underpass really relates to how it gets from the Transitway trench to the Richmond corridor in the first place. No way would an at-grade alignment across Rochester Field be acceptable to the locals and coming in at Cleary would require climbing up from the grade of the parkway corridor to remain "at grade" anyway, so staying low in both cases is clearly preferable.

That makes the most sense. I would guess that Dominion Station would be relocated a bit to the west into the connection between the alignments, to spread things out a bit. I think only one new station is necessary - around where Lockhart is now (just before ducking under Woodroffe) as New Orchard is pretty close to Lincoln Fields. I think underpasses are needed at Woodroffe, Richmond/Fraser (in the intersection) and a tunnel between Lincoln Fields and Richardson. Other crossings would need to be closed (but Richmond and Byron would both be open on both sides).

[Rathgrith]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

D

Have you ever been to Champs Élisés )like 6 or 8 lanes)? Or Avenue de l'Opéra? Or 5th Ave?
Heck, even BOUL. Des Allumétières looks nice!

It has to be done right, but it can look beautiful.

Yes, because the Champs Élisés is such a great truck route. Carling is not going to be the Champs Élisés anytime soon.

Unless Ottawa goes through the same thing Paris did in the early 1800's, its not going to happen.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Rathgrith

....
Unless Ottawa goes through the same thing Paris did in the early 1800's, its not going to happen.

OOOH, yes please! Can we start with Centretown?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

OOOH, yes please! Can we start with Centretown?

I'll provide the guillotine.