Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

As I wrote in the text you quoted, the block lengths are more than enough for 4-car trains. On the basis of length, 5-car trains would be theoretically possible.

Laurier to Waller would be a bit of a challenge because a compromise would be required. It's just long enough to fit a 4-car train - but doing so would necessitate a fairly sharp turn of about 50 m radius. Calgary has a few such turns, but they're hardly desirable. To get a better radius like 100 m (going through that triangular parking lot) would mean no longer being able to store a train in the block, thus requiring the two sets of lights to be synchronized (or some other scheme, like lowering Waller as Nicholas already is). I would put Laurier Station south rather than north of Laurier but I think it would be fair to say that introducing 4-car trains to downtown would require a rethinking of how traffic is managed in that area generally, which might not be a bad thing.

With headways, I wouldn't want to try for anything below 2.5 minutes until we were pretty good at it. That's 150 seconds so the traffic signal cycles would need to be sped up from 55 to 50 seconds. Going down to 2 minutes would probably cause them to be bumped up to 60 seconds. 2:15 is 135 seconds, or 3X45 seconds, which is probably pushing it. 1:40 is 100 seconds (36 trains per hour) so you're back at 50 second cycles. I have seen two CTrains on 7th separated by 75 seconds (I was riding a train from the south and a train from the NE was at the east junction just as we arrived and it was 75 seconds from then until the train I was on entered the avenue) but I think dealing with crossings at the junctions limits Calgary to 100 seconds in terms of scheduling. It kind of depends though on what you're thinking: will there still be a lane of traffic operating on Albert? It sort of seems like it since you mention Slater being configured for two-way traffic but you also mention only using the "northernmost" lanes on Albert. What was your idea there? Somehow you have to provide platform access to both directions. One way is to use the two northernmost lanes for LRT and then the next lane to the south for platforms and the final lane for one-way traffic (which deals with access on the south side) but that leaves loading without much of an option. Another would be to use the same three lanes but make the middle one the platform with the final lane for loading, but that means that the eastbound LRT lane would have to be shared.

If the street is completely or nearly completely closed to traffic one can probably get away with much greater fiddling with traffic signal timings since pedestrians can (and will) cross during the extended periods when no trains are present and because the width of the street that is to be crossed is less. But dealing with access (property and loading) becomes a whole lot more complicated once the street is completely shut to all other traffic in the sense that alternative accesses and loading areas have to be provided elsewhere. Turning Slater into a two-way road would probably also result in loading zones/parking being banned during peak periods and who knows what would happen to the dedicated left-turn lanes (on the plus side though, it might finally cause the City to sort out the street naming mess on LeBreton Flats - make it simple: Scott west of Booth, Slater east of Booth).

One of the really surprising things about the N-S LRT project was that every block downtown was slated to have a transit platform of one sort or another. Not only were trains and buses going to be mixing it up together, but the drastic reduction in loading/parking space would have caused other problems as well. I just don't get the impression it was all that well thought-out.

[Suzie]

Thanks, Dado. I had a feeling that the area around Laurier Station would be problematic.

Here’s what I was thinking of for Albert Street:

• Elgin to Metcalfe block: Station would be angled slightly (southeast to northwest) with platforms on both sides. With such an angle, it may be possible to maintain access to some of the north side properties (e.g., the British High Commission, the NAC parking lot, etc.). Other than that no vehicle access would be allowed. The existing hotel on the south side of that block would be bought out (no big loss).

• Metcalfe to O’Connor: No station on this block. The northern two lanes would be occupied by the train tracks. A small barrier would separate them from the two existing one-way southern lanes, which would remain accessible to cars and delivery trucks. For most of the block length, one of these lanes would be available for parking. This would maintain good access to the buildings on the south side, including the Sheraton Hotel. Traffic would enter from Metcalfe and loop back onto O’Connor to exit.

• O’Connor to Bank: This block would have platforms on both sides. Ideally, you would close that block off completely. However, there is an existing narrow access right next to a small drycleaning business on the south side. Thus, one-lane access may be required, although buy-outs could be another option.

• Bank to Kent: No station on this block. A similar arrangement to the Metcalfe to O’Connor block could be put in place, except that the two southern lanes would flow in the opposition direction (from Kent towards Bank). Access to the Southern buildings would be maintained as currently is the case. On the north side, the access point in the middle of the block that currently leads to an underground garage would be relocated to Queen Street.

• Kent to Lyon: This block would have platforms on both sides and would be closed to all other traffic. The existing access points on the north side just west of the existing station would be closed as alternative access already exists on Queen Street. Changes to the Crowne Plaza hotel would be required to allow taxis and cars to access it without going onto Albert.

• Lyon to Bay: No station on this block. One option would be to have an arrangement similar to the Bank to Kent block in order to maintain some access. Alternatively, the entire block could be closed off to traffic with some buyouts or alternative access provided for southern properties.

• Bay to Bronson: This block is the most problematic in my opinion. It would have a station with either platforms on both sides or a centre platform. The most drastic option would be close the block to all other traffic. A range of buyouts would be required for properties on both sides and the hotel at Bay would lose its taxi stand. Alternatively, one could take land from the Ottawa Technical High School site and push the train tracks to the south in order to keep the northernmost one or two lanes open to traffic. I suspect that this would require that the Lyon to Bay block be completely closed off to other traffic in order to allow trains to migrate between the north and south sides of Albert. Some buyouts for the south side properties would still be required.

Slater would become just like to Laurier, which has parking restrictions during peak periods. The impact on traffic would need to be carefully analyzed.

[Aylmer]

Page 100 everyone! Just thought you should know!

[eternallyme]

I like your surface LRT option, which is also surely MUCH cheaper (the savings could buy the Baseline-Tunney's Pasture section, and then we could get studies going on the suburban extensions).

Laurier should be eliminated (it is also only 300m to Mackenzie King and 500m to Campus, easy walking distances), since the alignment there would need to be curved and elevated to cross Nicholas, Waller and Laurier all above grade (i.e. overpass of all three streets).

Mackenzie King Bridge - should become LRT exclusive and closed to all traffic except for LRT vehicles, bicycles (on a separate path) and pedestrians. The Waller/MCB and Laurier/Transitway intersections would be eliminated.

Otherwise, 2 lanes would be needed for the most part (1 lane for the LRT tracks, 1 lane converted for the side-loading station). To use either Albert or Slater only would require a full closure.

I agree in such an alignment, the Bronson-Bay, Lyon-Kent, Bank-O'Connor and Metcalfe-Elgin blocks should have stations.

Crosstown buses (i.e. 85, 86) should use Queen Street, and STO should remain on Wellington Street.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Thanks, Dado. I had a feeling that the area around Laurier Station would be problematic.

Yes - even with the tunnel it'll be problematic due to the geology.

Here’s what I was thinking of for Albert Street:

• Elgin to Metcalfe block: Station would be angled slightly (southeast to northwest) with platforms on both sides. With such an angle, it may be possible to maintain access to some of the north side properties (e.g., the British High Commission, the NAC parking lot, etc.). Other than that no vehicle access would be allowed. The existing hotel on the south side of that block would be bought out (no big loss).

Neat idea... makes it better coming off the bridge too. The platforms could be staggered to optimize the angled alignment. The hotel - the Capital Hill Hotel - already has access from Slater. Do you know if the High Commission has access other than on Albert because while one lane for access could be maintained it's unlikely that two could be?

• Metcalfe to O’Connor: No station on this block. The northern two lanes would be occupied by the train tracks. A small barrier would separate them from the two existing one-way southern lanes, which would remain accessible to cars and delivery trucks. For most of the block length, one of these lanes would be available for parking. This would maintain good access to the buildings on the south side, including the Sheraton Hotel. Traffic would enter from Metcalfe and loop back onto O’Connor to exit.

After I submitted my post I began to consider that there might be possibilities in the 'off-blocks' if the trains were running in the northmost pair of lanes but I hadn't given it any further thought than that.

• O’Connor to Bank: This block would have platforms on both sides. Ideally, you would close that block off completely. However, there is an existing narrow access right next to a small drycleaning business on the south side. Thus, one-lane access may be required, although buy-outs could be another option.

I think Bell also has an access on the south side but the drycleaning access runs through to a parking lot on Slater if I'm not mistaken.

• Bank to Kent: No station on this block. A similar arrangement to the Metcalfe to O’Connor block could be put in place, except that the two southern lanes would flow in the opposition direction (from Kent towards Bank). Access to the Southern buildings would be maintained as currently is the case. On the north side, the access point in the middle of the block that currently leads to an underground garage would be relocated to Queen Street.

And the access to the parking lot can be closed and shifted elsewhere upon development (which it probably would anyway). I like how you've shifted the direction of traffic since in both cases you've maintained curb lane to curb lane turns without need of crossing any other lanes of traffic.

• Kent to Lyon: This block would have platforms on both sides and would be closed to all other traffic. The existing access points on the north side just west of the existing station would be closed as alternative access already exists on Queen Street. Changes to the Crowne Plaza hotel would be required to allow taxis and cars to access it without going onto Albert.

I'm not sure much would need to be done for the Crowne Plaza other than to create a pocket left turn lane out of part of the northmost lane (past the west end of the platform since there'd be more than enough room to spare). In effect, taxis/cars would make a U-turn from Lyon to Albert and then to the hotel. Currently that bit of Albert is already a special right-turn into the hotel so having it as a special left-turn from Lyon and Albert wouldn't be all that different. Alternatively, taxis could be allowed to use Albert, sharing with LRT.

• Lyon to Bay: No station on this block. One option would be to have an arrangement similar to the Bank to Kent block in order to maintain some access. Alternatively, the entire block could be closed off to traffic with some buyouts or alternative access provided for southern properties.

I don't think there are any properties that couldn't have access provided from elsewhere, so no buyouts should be necessary.

• Bay to Bronson: This block is the most problematic in my opinion. It would have a station with either platforms on both sides or a centre platform. The most drastic option would be close the block to all other traffic. A range of buyouts would be required for properties on both sides and the hotel at Bay would lose its taxi stand. Alternatively, one could take land from the Ottawa Technical High School site and push the train tracks to the south in order to keep the northernmost one or two lanes open to traffic. I suspect that this would require that the Lyon to Bay block be completely closed off to other traffic in order to allow trains to migrate between the north and south sides of Albert. Some buyouts for the south side properties would still be required.

Definitely the most problematic. It may be possible to create a back lane to serve the properties on the south side, in which case taxi/bus parking could be maintained at the hotel if a track-platform-track arrangement is used on the three southernmost lanes with taxis/buses sharing the lane with LRT. Another possibility that I thought of is to locate the station as far west as possible and put the two tracks in the southernmost lanes with a platform in the lane to their north, leaving one lane free at the west end of the block but two lanes free at the east end of this very long block. That would allow the taxi stand to remain. Traffic would have to shuffle over one lane as the platform began but it would be doable. Putting the station at the west end of the block is less than ideal right now, but if there is ever some more development around the escarpment it'll make more sense.

I think it would be worth looking into making Bay a two-way road as well. South of Laurier, Percy exists as the southbound half of a one-way couplet (like Lyon and Kent) but north of Laurier there is no such couplet road, so making Bay two-way to Laurier (or perhaps Gloucester, which is one-way westbound) would make some sense in that respect. With Bay as two-way it would allow taxis and such to circle around on Queen to the hotel.

Slater would become just like to Laurier, which has parking restrictions during peak periods. The impact on traffic would need to be carefully analyzed.

For the historically-minded and ambitious, there is another option instead of making Slater a two-way street: do a variation on what the Holt Report (1915 iirc) recommended: link Scott (err, Wellington, err Albert - see what I mean?) and Laurier by building a short tunnel into the cliff where Slater climbs up from Empress. This would take it under Bronson and would allow Laurier to be the eastbound road and Slater the westbound (it would be "fun" to be around the day the change of direction occurs!). Bronson would be southbound only in the block between Slater and Laurier (up the hill) with a right turn-off for northbound Bronson traffic at and down to Laurier. The block of Bronson between Slater and Albert would then cease to have any purpose other than providing access to the properties on the south side of Albert and could therefore be turned into a simple two-lane road. The real fun then begins at the Canal and its bridges...

The Laurier Bridge could remain two-way. The link between Slater and the McKenzie King Bridge would be closed. Westbound traffic would get from the Laurier Bridge to Slater via a link that cuts across the southwest corner of Confederation Park, leaving Laurier around the City Hall pedestrian crossing. Either that or it just goes up Elgin for a block. On the McKenzie King Bridge, LRT would occupy the southern two lanes with the northern pair given to two-way traffic as a sort of defacto extension of Queen across the Canal if the lights on Elgin were synchronized to allow it.

Or we could just stick with Slater and Laurier both being two-way.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

Neat idea... makes it better coming off the bridge too. The platforms could be staggered to optimize the angled alignment. The hotel - the Capital Hill Hotel - already has access from Slater. Do you know if the High Commission has access other than on Albert because while one lane for access could be maintained it's unlikely that two could be?

Yes, the High Commission also has good access off Queen Street. However, I figured that for security reasons they would want to keep an alternative access off Albert. I could be wrong though.

You are correct that the Capital Hill Hotel has access off Slater for hotel guests arriving by car (its façade on Slater is not very nice to look at though). However, I think that guests arriving by taxi use Albert. Thus, I was anticipating complaints from the hotel owner if access from Albert were cut off. Perhaps only some minor modifications to the Slater entrance would be required.

I think Bell also has an access on the south side but the drycleaning access runs through to a parking lot on Slater if I'm not mistaken.

I had forgotten about the Bell access. I think that the drycleaning business lost its access to Slater when the Telus building was put in. Thus, one-lane access would be required along the whole block. Not ideal, but doable.

I'm not sure much would need to be done for the Crowne Plaza other than to create a pocket left turn lane out of part of the northmost lane (past the west end of the platform since there'd be more than enough room to spare). In effect, taxis/cars would make a U-turn from Lyon to Albert and then to the hotel. Currently that bit of Albert is already a special right-turn into the hotel so having it as a special left-turn from Lyon and Albert wouldn't be all that different. Alternatively, taxis could be allowed to use Albert, sharing with LRT.

I like your first option much better. Allowing taxis to share sections of Albert with LRT would likely result in accidents. Taxis are often driven erratically and can cause a lot of interference (Rideau Street at the Rideau Centre is a case in point).

Definitely the most problematic. It may be possible to create a back lane to serve the properties on the south side, in which case taxi/bus parking could be maintained at the hotel if a track-platform-track arrangement is used on the three southernmost lanes with taxis/buses sharing the lane with LRT. Another possibility that I thought of is to locate the station as far west as possible and put the two tracks in the southernmost lanes with a platform in the lane to their north, leaving one lane free at the west end of the block but two lanes free at the east end of this very long block. That would allow the taxi stand to remain. Traffic would have to shuffle over one lane as the platform began but it would be doable. Putting the station at the west end of the block is less than ideal right now, but if there is ever some more development around the escarpment it'll make more sense.

I like your option of putting the station as far west as possible. Pressure could emerge to put in a cross-walk in the middle of the block to provide better access from the north to the westbound platform (i.e., across the traffic lane). However, this would not affect the LRT lanes.

I think it would be worth looking into making Bay a two-way road as well. South of Laurier, Percy exists as the southbound half of a one-way couplet (like Lyon and Kent) but north of Laurier there is no such couplet road, so making Bay two-way to Laurier (or perhaps Gloucester, which is one-way westbound) would make some sense in that respect. With Bay as two-way it would allow taxis and such to circle around on Queen to the hotel.

I’ve wondered at times why Bay is not a two-way street.

For the historically-minded and ambitious, there is another option instead of making Slater a two-way street: do a variation on what the Holt Report (1915 iirc) recommended: link Scott (err, Wellington, err Albert - see what I mean?) and Laurier by building a short tunnel into the cliff where Slater climbs up from Empress.

I'm not sure if a tunnel would be required. Would the slope from Empress to Bronson be steeper than the current slope on Bronson from Slater to Laurier?

Or we could just stick with Slater and Laurier both being two-way.

My experience has been that Laurier works well as long as parking restrictions are enforced.




Anyway, the main motivation for exploring this scheme was the desire to maintain the four surface stations in the downtown core. They provide great accessibility to transit users. I won’t deny that cost and risk factors were also on my mind.

The scheme would cause some disruption to downtown businesses. However, except for the loss of parking spots, I think that the disruptions could be minimized at low cost. Overall, it would be superior to the current bus lane arrangement or the cancelled North-South plan. It would also provide the capacity needed to meet long-term transit demand from both sides of the Ottawa River. There would be the occasional hiccups when intersections such as Laurier and Kent would be blocked (by demonstrations, bridge closures, overzealous car driver trying to sneak through, etc.). I don’t know how frequent such disruptions are in Calgary.

If federal and provincial funding doesn't come through for the tunnel option, perhaps surface LRT will be seriously considered.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

If federal and provincial funding doesn't come through for the tunnel option, perhaps surface LRT will be seriously considered.

The issue I have for this is that lines with a tenth of the ridership are funded elsewhere. For Eglinton, it's a quarter of Ottawa's planned ridership, and nobody seems to complain about the 5G$ pricetag.

I'm really tired of politics. The fact that LRT would be strained out with a surface option at the start indicates that it's not enough, that's it.

[lrt's friend]

Projects are being approved elsewhere because they can legitimately claim that they are going to increase ridership and speed up transit. They are new rapid transit routes. The new Eglinton route in Toronto is a good example.

It becomes difficult in Ottawa's case, because we are replacing existing rapid transit. There have been all kinds of statements about congestion and faster service through downtown, but in the end, the route is the same and there is no convincing argument that this will quickly attract new ridership. Sure, there will be increasing ridership over time, but the upper levels of government are looking for a quick pay back in new ridership with the opening of LRT in Ottawa. The faster service is also going to be negated by adding a transfer penalty, the depth of the stations and longer walks to station entrances.

It would be a lot easier to convince the upper levels of government to fund the downtown tunnel, if it had been combined with building a 'new' rapid transit route, which will bring rapid transit closer to more residents in this city. In other words, there would be new riders along the new route, and the new route would run faster than current bus routes in mixed traffic along that corridor.

It all seems like a simple concept to me, yet we continue to get mixed up between total ridership and new ridership. The upper levels of government are looking for the latter and they have said this time and again.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It all seems like a simple concept to me, yet we continue to get mixed up between total ridership and new ridership. The upper levels of government are looking for the latter and they have said this time and again.

The same levels of government could say no more BRT, but they haven't so yeah, it works both ways.

I'm all for constitutional reforms, cities are being held hostages by different levels of governments.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The fact that LRT would be strained out with a surface option at the start indicates that it's not enough.

What leads you to claim that the surface option would be "strained out" at the start?

[Kitchissippi]

ˆˆˆ Because ridership along the downtown corridor is already at a level that warrants grade separation. This isn't a new "see-if-they-ride it" case as was the C-train or the MAX when they first started out. If those other cities are already thinking of implementing tunnels after decades of building up levels of ridership, doing surface LRT in downtown Ottawa would be foolish if ridership and capacity are to increase in the near future.

[waterloowarrior]

Tunnel depth won’t hurt commerce: city officials
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Tunnel+depth+hurt+commerce+city+officials/1660165/story.html

BY TIM SHUFELT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJUNE 3, 2009 11:03 PM


OTTAWA-Although the proposed subway tunnel to be located downtown will have to go deep — around 10-storeys deep — city officials say that will not prevent an “underground city” from developing.

At the heart of the city’s $4-billion light-rail plan is a three-kilometre tunnel stretching from Albert Street near LeBreton Flats to Rideau Street and Sussex Drive, past the University of Ottawa and ending at Lees Station.

Concerns have been raised, however, that obstacles like the foundations of existing buildings will force the tunnel too far underground, making it less accessible and preventing the kind of below-ground commerce found in Montreal and Toronto.

City staff admit that the digging will have to occur up to 30-metres under the surface, mainly so the tunnel clears storm sewers along the Rideau Canal.

“It’s not a difficult thing,” the city’s head of transit planning, Vivi Chi, told the Citizen’s editorial board on Wednesday. “Worldwide, there are deep tunnels all over.”

And if we dig it, the subterranean businesses will come, said deputy city manager Nancy Schepers.

“The depth is not going to have a material impact on that. It will happen over time. (Commercial development) won’t happen at the depth of the station itself, it will be the transition between the station itself and the buildings,” Schepers said.

Going deeper is cheaper, they added, as it would avoid key utilities infrastructure just below the surface and would make for easy boring through the limestone bedrock.

And depth matters when it comes to rider convenience, they said. With enough room for a concourse on top of the subway stations, passengers would be able to access either platform directly after entering the station.

If all goes according to plan, construction of the tunnel will begin in 2012 and it could be operational by 2016. But much needs to happen before then.

The city’s credibility in the rail-construction marketplace is questionable after it reneged on its original rail plan, resulting in a $200-million lawsuit from the Siemens consortium that had won the contract.

However, “getting to the altar and not being able to finish the deal” should not dissuade firms when there’s the prospect of winning a lucrative contract, Schepers said.

Co-operation will also be required to implement the city’s plan, she added. Rights of way will have to be secured from the property owners atop the proposed subway route and approval from the NCC is still needed to locate the light rail route along the Ottawa River Parkway.

“They’re not saying yes, they’re not saying no,” she said.

Regardless of the specific route, however, the NCC will have to be involved, she added. “The federal government has land interests through the entire corridor.”

Other east-west routes are also still on the table, including Carling Avenue and Byron Avenue, she said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Calgary won't be putting in a tunnel any time soon.

When they do put in a tunnel, it won't be to replace or even supplement the current on-street alignment. The first tunnel to go in will be to serve the future SE LRT line and will be oriented north-south rather than east-west. The surface line will continue to operate. The facts of it (1) crossing the alignment of the existing service and, more importantly (2) that the north-south block lengths can't hold a train of any significant length are why a tunnel plan is being developed.

Given that there is a long-term plan to put in an east-west tunnel as well when it's needed, Calgary will be studying the issues of having two tunnels so that they can decide how to arrange them. In other words, they can't just go and build the north-south tunnel without figuring out the east-west tunnel at the same time. I know, I know, I realize this is a strange concept here in Ottawa - figuring out how things will all work together way in the future (*ahem* West Transitway *ahem*) - but it does really make sense. But it also should not be misconstrued as some great change of focus or direction.

At any rate, Calgary's ultimate on-street LRT will hold 4-car trains of 100 m length but since our blocks are longer we could use ~30 m LRVs for 4-car trains of ~120 m. And since they're already carrying more people on the current corridor with 3-car 75 m trains than we are, the notion that we would run out of capacity on day one is preposterous. We'd have to be *exceeding* Calgary's growth in absolute ridership for years to run out of capacity. The City's own TMP update said that a 30 m LRV would be required on an average headway of 36s in 2031 - that's 144s (2.4 min) for a 4-car train. So at a minimum we'll get 15 years of capacity and more probably 20+ with LRT on the surface. That's plenty of time to get a tunnel organized. About the only thing that would put us in a position of being short of capacity is if Gatineau's riders are all put on our LRT going in only one direction while our own growth grows much faster than predicted.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

What leads you to claim that the surface option would be "strained out" at the start?

From the numbers, plus the way to have four car stations, that could theorically works, but it's the minimum required. So in either cases, there will be a need for a second line or a tunnel. A second line could be proved to be difficult.

Another thing that the planners didn't include are the Gatineaul folks. In a snowstorm, who in their right mind would stay in a small shelter to wait for their bus, when they could stay in the subway stations and alter their route. The interprovincial crossings study numbers are quite high.

For the 15 years capacity, I don't think anybody here is arguing about that. It's just that it takes 10 years to build. I wouldn't spend 100M$ for 5 years usability.

[lrt's friend]

Why would it take 10 years to build a surface LRT route through downtown? We could have had one after 3 years construction and open this year.

As far as Gatineau is concerned, there are no plans to build LRT across the river so the option of waiting in a subway station is not really viable. It is inconceivable that we would transport all Gatineau transit riders from downtown to Lebreton by subway and then transfer everybody to a bus. I vote firmly against having a major bus transfer station on Lebreton Flats. Bayview is also not an option, being so far west, and since the Prince of Wales Bridge cannot handle two way traffic as presently configured.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why would it take 10 years to build a surface LRT route through downtown? We could have had one after 3 years construction and open this year.

As far as Gatineau is concerned, there are no plans to build LRT across the river so the option of waiting in a subway station is not really viable. It is inconceivable that we would transport all Gatineau transit riders from downtown to Lebreton by subway and then transfer everybody to a bus. I vote firmly against having a major bus transfer station on Lebreton Flats. Bayview is also not an option, being so far west, and since the Prince of Wales Bridge cannot handle two way traffic as presently configured.

Because the planning process is still unbelievably slow. Had one is the correct term, we are talking about the future here.

Don't say inconceivable, because that was part of the plan, "to remove buses" from downtown. You may vote firmly against it, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. There are plan for major transfer stations elseswhere in the city, no?

[lrt's friend]

Surely we don't want a major bus transfer station so close to downtown on prime land we have been waiting to develop for 40 years.

[lrt's friend]

I find it all very ironic that in the 1950s and 1960s, we were so gungho to remove all railways from downtown Ottawa, the streetcars, the passenger trains and the freight yards from Lebreton flats and replace everything with buses (and trucks). Now, 50 years later, many are pushing for the removal of most buses from downtown to be replaced with, what do you know, railways, even surface railways. I recall seeing an old photo of the Confederation Square area, which was clogged with streetcars, as bad as the Albert/Slater situation of today.

We better be careful that we don't recreate the worst of the past.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We better be careful that we don't recreate the worst of the past.

As Toronto is a city that didn't change anything from the past concerning streetcars and its union station, I don't think they're in a worse situation. If anything, their new plans are building on existing technology from the 19th century. HSR is also an evolution of century old concepts.

If there's something to learn, is not to be quick at removing old technology and replacing everything with the new ones, even if it seems to be better (as cars and buses were at the time).

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

From the numbers, plus the way to have four car stations, that could theorically works, but it's the minimum required. So in either cases, there will be a need for a second line or a tunnel. A second line could be proved to be difficult.

Another thing that the planners didn't include are the Gatineaul folks. In a snowstorm, who in their right mind would stay in a small shelter to wait for their bus, when they could stay in the subway stations and alter their route. The interprovincial crossings study numbers are quite high.

For the 15 years capacity, I don't think anybody here is arguing about that. It's just that it takes 10 years to build. I wouldn't spend 100M$ for 5 years usability.

We should be able to achieve similar capacity as 7th Avenue in Calgary. In that case, the maximum achievable capacity has been estimated at approximately 36 trains per hour in each direction (at least, that’s what page 3 of http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Downtown_Final_Report.pdf says). With 4-car trains and 180 people per car, that’s almost 26,000 pphpd. That’s sufficient for 2031 even assuming: (1) all of the Gatineau/STO demand would use the line, come in from the West and enter downtown, (2) none of the demand from Ottawa West would get off before reaching downtown, and (3) the N/S line would use the O-Train corridor.

The assumptions, particularly the first two, are debatable:

• We still don’t know how trips to/from Gatineau will be accommodated. The assumption above is the worst case scenario. Further, even under that scenario, some trips will avoid downtown Ottawa altogether and go to points westward such as Tunney’s Pasture. Who knows, with a new crossing at Kettle Island, there could even be some scope to direct some of the demand from the former City of Gatineau towards Cyrville Station. This would help balance out loads.

• Some of the Ottawa West traffic will get off before reaching downtown Ottawa to go to Hull (e.g., get off at Lebreton). This would free up some capacity (not a huge amount, I grant you) to absorb some of the Gatineau/STO demand.

• Perhaps the surface option would force the City to reconsider its enthusiasm for the more expensive O-Train corridor.
Further, some surface bus routes would remain and could absorb some of the demand.