Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

For the minority who get a seat during peak periods



Some councillors admit that LRT as planned will not generate significant new ridership.



Hmmm, only if we plan to have no trains running on it.



Any time savings will be lost because of the transfer penalty, lengthy escalator rides and longer walking distances to reach a station.



More cars will quickly fill the void. It is always the case. I recall reading that was one of the selling points for removing streetcars from Ottawa.



I am not convinced of this. It really doesn't provide any new service over what is provided today.

After reading through this post (and others since you've published since the demise of the original N/S LRT line) I have to ask -- are you still "lrt's friend" or just "old N/S lrt to Barrhaven's friend"? I guess I've failed to understand. Have you reconsidered support for the mode only insofar as it's currently presented?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Maybe I’m misinterpreting slide 14 in the presentation, but I think it shows the station moving northwards quite a bit. It looks like there would only be a bit of overlap with the existing station (i.e., between the northern tail of the existing station and the south section of the new station).

Ya, you're right. They have moved it, not just extended it in one direction only like I thought. It's kind of silly because they can build a new station for 4-car trains (~120 m) entirely north of the current station and then make use of the current station for the final 60 m further in the future.

This would move the station farther away from much of the existing development. While not the end of the world by any stretch, it would inconvenience many current users.

With a second UoO campus going in, it'll inconvenience even more people in the future than at present.

If such a move is required because of the curve / rising grade to the south then there’s no choice in the matter. However, if the move is driven by a desire to serve future development north of the Queensway then I have a problem with it. I don’t think there is much development potential there given its location.

I don't get it either, because, as you say, not much potential there.

I could even understand it if the idea was to build a new station north of the transitway on/off-ramp just north of the station so as to allow buses to continue using the Hurdman Bridge for longer, then come off at Lees, then up and around Lees to King Edward without buses having to go through a construction zone.

Thinking a bit more about it, it may well be the grade. Trains coming in from the south would be coming down a hill so putting on the brakes is a bit wasteful, but the Queensway underpass is a bit higher up (seems like weird grading from the initial busway construction, but there's plenty of weird things throughout the system that make no sense to bus operation, never mind trains). By moving the station they can cut down on the amount of braking. They may even be able to "fill in" a bit under Lees to remove a local low spot as well as getting the greatest possible radius turn. In the opposite direction they'd be coming out of the tunnel and would likely be rising up to a station under the Queensway. If this is the reason, it's a pretty reasonable one - but they could have just said so.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by citizen j

After reading through this post (and others since you've published since the demise of the original N/S LRT line) I have to ask -- are you still "lrt's friend" or just "old N/S lrt to Barrhaven's friend"? I guess I've failed to understand. Have you reconsidered support for the mode only insofar as it's currently presented?

You've asked a question I think a lot of us have been wondering for a while now...

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Glad to see that the Downtown Coalition shares my concern about the alignment. Since, unlike me, they have political clout, it will be interesting to see whether they can force some changes. It would be nice to have them come out in favour of a third station at Bank. Without their support, it won’t happen.

All the more so because their alignment facilitates the addition of a third station at Bank due to the fact that theirs is still under Albert at Bank whereas the City's has already started on the diagonal. The fact then of there being a somewhat sharper curve would be negated by being adjacent to a station. A third station strengthens the case for their alignment and their alignment strengthens the case for a third station. That they haven't come out in favour of a third station is therefore somewhat puzzling. Or not - they were only seeing things from a business perspective and none other.

Transferring the remaining bus routes to the Mackenzie King Bridge would provide these routes with a less chaotic environment than Rideau Street where there is constant interference from taxis and other vehicles, too many traffic lights and pathetic bus shelters. Even though, at the end of the day, it may not be a viable option, it should at least be studied.

I still don't know how the Gatineau traffic fits into this grand plan.

Anyone think Bédard has just opened up the door to Albert and Slater being used for Gatineau traffic along with any remaining local OC Transpo traffic? Getting to/from the Portage Bridge is about the only challenge but nothing that a little money (relatively speaking) couldn't fix.

[eternallyme]

How about putting the station directly under the Rideau Centre about 50-70m south of the proposed alignment? That would require at least one access point open during the hours the train is operating (presumably at least 20-21 hours a day, possibly 24 hours).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by citizen j

After reading through this post (and others since you've published since the demise of the original N/S LRT line) I have to ask -- are you still "lrt's friend" or just "old N/S lrt to Barrhaven's friend"? I guess I've failed to understand. Have you reconsidered support for the mode only insofar as it's currently presented?

The latter is correct. I don't like the current plan. It is too oriented towards buses and too much of our money is being spent on Transitway extensions. The LRT that is presented does not deliver new service and will likely not generate new ridership. LRT as designed is reactive to deal with increasing ridership rather than generating new ridership itself. More buses feeding LRT over time will be the only reason for increasing ridership. Why can't we have LRT that actually will generate new ridership because it provides new service? This is a standard expectation in other cities building LRT or other new rail transit. The terminal LRT stations are too expensive and will in themselves prevent extension of LRT. The criteria for extension to the suburbs is ridiculous. I do like the tunnel concept as far as easing downtown transit congestion but I feel it is oversold as far as service improvement and extra capacity especially if we mostly take Albert/Slater out of service as a tranist corridor. The extra capacity during peak periods will come from making more people stand than today. This is why I make sarcastic comments about this aspect. It will not be more comfortable during peak periods when you are crammed in a crowded train.

[Richard Eade]

Well, it seems that I was wrong on how far south the tunnel would go; according to the DOTT Study recommendation, it is to be cut & cover from the Camups Station to around the Transitway exit ramp south of Mann. Apparently the tunnel guys (Halcrow) say that if the tunnel stays low, the TBM should get to the Campus Station. (I wonder if the 'buffer land' reclaimed from the Transitway will then be claimed by a widening of Nicholas to handle the traffic coming across the new bridge? )

Can (will) the tunnel be extended farther south (maybe across the river to Hurdman)? No. There is no interest in it so the excuses are flying fast and thick. (needs to be cut & cover which is too disruptive; too much tar-goo under Lees; can't cut & cover across the river; stone under the river is too fractured; Hurdman is an old dump so can't be excavated; etc.)

The DOTT announcement, as has been pointed out already, confirmed that there is NO PLAN to convert the S-E Transitway to rail. They even went as far as saying that there would need to be significant intensification around Hurdman to justify another rail line into it!

Anyone else catch Vivi's words about Blair? This is "a very major transit station." I can see its cost escalating by quite a bit when the actual design is done. (The only OC Transpo elevators we seem to be able to consistantly count on are those of the estimated prices. )

[Richard Eade]

Can anyone tell me anything about the Pinecrest Garage? I believe it is the depot for the old high-floor buses, which are being phased out.

According to a report to be given to the Transit Committee this Wednesday, OC Transpo wants another $15M to enlarge the Articulated Bus Garage being built on Industrial. Part of the justification is the potential savings from the closure and possible sale of the Pinecrest Garage.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2009/05-06/ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0005.htm

Any comments? How will this affect the Western Transitway connection between Pinecrest and Lincoln Fields?

[Richard Eade]

Did anyone get out to the Open House for the Hospitsl Link/Cumberland Transitway?

Comments?

[the capital urbanite]

What would be the cost of an additional station between Rideau Centre and Campus? What would be the operational impact? There must be better alternatives to simply adding more stations. Instead of making the system more costly and inefficient by adding additional stations, you could add a secondary people mover between MacKenzie King and Campus Station.

As for the debate about station placement West of the Rideau Centre, I really don't see why people are whining so much. This is a subway not a local bus route. The maximum additional distance that people will have to walk from the South is 150m relative to the current Transitway stops. If you can't walk that extra distance there are local bus routes you can use. The stations could also incorporate underground moving walkways extending to the South (i.e. Slater) with little additional cost.

[Richard Eade]

For the DOTT, how many more people will take the train if it stops under Rideau instead of under the Mackenzie-King Bridge?

That is, is there a larger potential ridership from people in the Market than in the DND-HQ building, University of Ottawa, and Sandy Hill?

What about a station that stretched from under the south door of the Rideau Centre to Waller?



This would replace the current Mackenzie-King and the Laurier Stations while providing approximately the same functionallity. The Rideau Centre would still have its 2.3M walk-throughs per year; DND-HQ would still be served; the new Conference Centre could have a dedicated entrance; the northern portion of the UofO and Sandy Hill would be served; the mezzanine would act as an underpass for pedestrians crossing Waller; and the underground valley would not be a problem during boring.

Is there really a strong need to have the catchment area include all of the Market? Or could the market people walk through the Rideau Centre to the train?

One of the Consultants arguments for having the trains go under Rideau is to provide a simplified transfer between the surface buses and the trains. If Councillor Bedard and the Rideau BIA have their way, both the buses and the train will not be running in the same corridor. Bedard's suggestion is to move the buses from Rideau to the Mackenzie-King Bridge. This would maintain some of the Rideau Centre's through-traffic, just in the reverse direction. The issue of getting the buses from Rideau St. to the Mackenzie-King Bridge was not specified. However, if this happens, the only remaining argument for taking the train north to Rideau is for the market walk-ons. Is that enough reason? Why would we not simply leave things the way they are and take advantage of the existing ridership patterns which are already well developed and, in turn, have influenced the development and placement of downtown businesses?

[waterloowarrior]

Downtown Tunnel Staff Report

Number of Stations in the Core Area

There are four underground stations planned to serve downtown Ottawa: Downtown West, Downtown East, Rideau and Campus. LeBreton Station, to the west of the core area will also serve development on the west side of downtown, including the proposed Escarpment Area development. Comments received during the consultation process have indicated a desire for either more, or fewer stations in the downtown Ottawa. Those advocating more stations have typically expressed concern over the spacing between downtown stations compared to other cities, the catchment area of each station, and the distance required to access each station given the potentially deep level of the tunnel. Others advocating fewer stations for the downtown state vehicle travel time and cost savings as concerns.

Existing subway systems in Toronto and Montreal have stations in their downtown spaced at an average distance of approximately 500 metres. These stations typically have a single primary access point from the platform level, with multiple accesses provided to the street from a single mezzanine level. Between LeBreton and Campus, stations on the DOTT are spaced 535 metres apart; on average. While this provides a slightly wider station spacing than that found in Toronto and Montreal, it is noteworthy that each DOTT station will have at least two major accesses points from the platform level, providing increased coverage for each station compared to downtown stations found in Toronto and Montreal. Population and employment densities in downtown Toronto and Montreal are also significantly higher than those of downtown Ottawa, with greater potential for increased future development.

The study examined pedestrian movements through the downtown area and considered walking distances to tunnel LRT stations. Using a benchmark of 300 metres and 500 metres walking distances showed that the majority of the downtown area was within the catchment area of a station, as measured from the mid-point of the platform area. Separate access points from the platform level helps lessen the walking distance and travel time to the station. Walking distances are consistent with other subway station arrangements and are consistent with the City’s guideline for walking distances to transit stations.

Overall, the proposed number of stations serving the downtown area has struck a balance between optimal station spacing for transit vehicle performance and in-vehicle travel time and the need to provide access and coverage to the downtown area. Given the significant cost of constructing underground stations, provision of additional stations in the downtown is not recommended.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Did anyone get out to the Open House for the Hospitsl Link/Cumberland Transitway?

Comments?

Yes. The engineering firm Morrison Hershfield seems to be competent and want to do a good, honest job. That is the good news.

The title is completely wrong - "Hospital link / cumberland transitway connection study". First of all, we already have a project named "hospital link" despite the fact it doesn't link any hospital nor is it required for emergency hospital access. Second, calling a transitway that is to connect Hurdman to Cumberland "Hospital Link" sort of gives the game away. The engineers assured me that all routes would be given proper consideration including a route through the Ottawa Train Yards using the existing rail infrastructure and the direct to Blair route.

Apparently the rationale for a multi-million dollar transitway is "Patients, visitors and employees have long argued that better access to the hospital grounds is necessary". Haven't received any transit studies on the expected increase in transit ridership over the existing bus route given a transitway to Cumberland. Apparently one city employee said something like "build it and they will come"!?

I would laugh if the consequences of their actions weren't so detrimental to the area and to the public purse.

BTW, the announcement for the meeting is now up (2 days after the event). There doesn't seem to be a link to the page in the public consulations page:
http://ottawa.ca/public_consult/index_en.shtml
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/hospital_cumberland/index_en.html
Still waiting for the display boards.

[the capital urbanite]

also from the report...pretty good reasons why a station can't go under the Rideau Centre

"Other alternative alignments and station designs were investigated and evaluated including one under the Rideau Centre aligned with Daly Street and another aligned with the existing Mackenzie Station. Both of these alternatives present a technical challenge because of the geotechnical conditions and the existing Rideau Centre or Mackenzie King Bridge structures, which are supported on piles. The TBM would have to pass through an array of piles while negotiating a grade differential as the curve and rise toward the south begins. The construction of a station along either Daly or Mackenzie King would be challenging and costly as access from the station to the surface would be difficult to achieve. Construction on either of these alignments increases the risk of creating long-term problems with settlement of Rideau Centre or Mackenzie Bridge. The Mackenzie King alignment would also be immediately adjacent to the Department of National Defence Headquarters building which could once again raise security concerns that were expressed during the North-South LRT Project."

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Can anyone tell me anything about the Pinecrest Garage? I believe it is the depot for the old high-floor buses, which are being phased out.

According to a report to be given to the Transit Committee this Wednesday, OC Transpo wants another $15M to enlarge the Articulated Bus Garage being built on Industrial. Part of the justification is the potential savings from the closure and possible sale of the Pinecrest Garage.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/tc/2009/05-06/ACS2009-ICS-TRA-0005.htm

Any comments? How will this affect the Western Transitway connection between Pinecrest and Lincoln Fields?

This is another reason to build the transitway through the Ottawa Train Yards - the new (larger) depot would be right on the transitway (as well as industrial).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by the capital urbanite

also from the report...pretty good reasons why a station can't go under the Rideau Centre

This is why good planning is important. They are doing a convention centre right now, the station should have been included, millions would have ben saved. I said the same thing about a bus station included in the new parkade at Rideau Centre.

Anyways, the reason for few stations really comes down to cost, and Diane Holmes: Population and employment densities in downtown Toronto and Montreal are also significantly higher than those of downtown Ottawa, with greater potential for increased future development.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

...Toronto and Montreal have stations in their downtown spaced at an average distance of approximately 500 metres....Between LeBreton and Campus, stations on the DOTT are spaced 535 metres apart; on average...

Using Google Earth, I get centre to centre distances of roughly:
LeBreton - DT-west = 835m
DT-west - DT-esat = 670m
DT-east - Rideau = 545m
Rideau - Campus = 1180m

This gives an average centre to centre distance of 807m.

If I calculate inter-station distances, based on 180m platforms:
LeBreton - DT-west = 655m
DT-west - DT-esat = 490m
DT-east - Rideau = 365m
Rideau - Campus = 1000m

Even using these numbers, I find the average inter-station distance to be 627m! Almost 100m more than the 535m that the City calculates! What math are they using?

Again, using Google Earth to measure the distances between the Toronto station's centres, I get:
Union - King = 370m
King - Queen = 380m
Queen - Dundas = 455m
Union - St. Andrew = 515m
St. Andrew - Osgoode = 310m

The average centre to centre distance is 406m. Half of the Ottawa spacing!

For Montreal:
Peel - McGill = 430m
McGill - Place des Arts = 500m
Place des Arts - Saint Laurent = 450m
Place d'Armes - Champ de Mars = 495m

Average centre to centre is 469m. Closer, but still almost 340m shorter than Ottawa's centre to centre spacing.

Well what if we leave out the big distance from the Rideau Station to Campus; then the average centre to centre distance is only 683m. This is still nowhere near the other two cities.

Who does the Staff think they are fooling?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

This is another reason to build the transitway through the Ottawa Train Yards - the new (larger) depot would be right on the transitway (as well as industrial).

Who cares if the bus garage is directly connected to the Transitway? What are our priorities? Buses or passengers?

Likewise, why build the Transitway so close to LRT through the trainyards? The employees of the hospital complex and associated facilities deserve better service than they get today. I have spent a lot of time at the General Hospital lately and it is amazing that the main transit connection is only between Hurdman and Elmvale. Hospitals are 24 hour facilities and are perfect candidates for being on a rapid transit line.

And yes, I do believe in 'Build it and people will come'. That is exactly what happened with the O-Train. We are a timid bunch assuming that any new rapid transit service is bound to fail.

[lrt's friend]

Who does the Staff think they are fooling?

Like I have said, any little bit of exageration to support their argument will be used unless enough people call them on it. I doubt that enough people will notice and complain.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Who does the Staff think they are fooling?

They need only fool 13 people from a group of 24 who have been fooled many times before.


Something I never expect to read in a staff transit/transportation report:

"We received a large number of comments with respect to doing such-and-such during the consultation. As a result of the interest expressed in doing such-and-such, and, upon reflection and consideration of the rationales presented to us, we're including such-and-such in our recommendations."