Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

Apparently, the Hospital people are not interested in the BRT route, but the trainyards people are.

2 things I've hear, not sure they relate. 1) they said a route off of Innes would be expensive. 2) they did not want the route in the marsh land along the rail corridor south of Innes.

The Ottawa Train Yards route is a good one. It is inexpensive and will cater to a large complex of Office and Retail space, not to mention the Bus Depot if they fix that.

They say the BRT (or LRT) route along the AVTC won't be needed for a long time after the AVTC is built which they expect will be in the next 5 years. The AVTC is about cars, not transit. The Hospital complex does not care about rapid transit. Perhaps because they make more money from parking fees.

I am getting tired of business lobbies and institutions influencing our transit decisions. Isn't this about what people and potential customers want?

I thought the rail corridor south of Innes runs through farm fields. It is only further east that runs along the Mer Bleu bog and there was no plan to run rapid transit along there.

It is going to very hard to build AVTC as a car only road. The residents of the area will rebel.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting tired of business lobbies and institutions influencing our transit decisions. Isn't this about what people and potential customers want?

I thought the rail corridor south of Innes runs through farm fields. It is only further east that runs along the Mer Bleu bog and there was no plan to run rapid transit along there.

It is going to very hard to build AVTC as a car only road. The residents of the area will rebel.

The way I understood it, some of the OTY land or buildings would be affected, same with the Hospital and that many (all) groups were consulted. I was not privy to these discussions.

The AVTC makes no sense, it puts more car traffic into the city core which is meant to decrease it's car traffic in order to achieve transit targets. Connecting some sort of rapid transit to the South-East transitway along the AVTC route in the future might have some support though. I don't see people supporting an expensive parkway though, especially since it isn't needed for the Hospital.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Good grief! Is that the plan for the Hospital-Innes corridor?

Are we talking about just bus lanes on Innes? That's what it looks like. So, are we getting away from segregated ROWs, and how practical for later conversion to LRT?

I guess we don't want to deal with that difficult section next to the Perley Home so we just avoid it.

Funny place for a station on Innes where the Via Rail overpass is. It is really in between things with poor access to anything.

As far as the AVTC connecting to Riverside South, check a map, this is way too far east and how would you get it there? This would inevitably be far more expensive than using the existing proposed route using the old CPR ROW. LRT on the AVTC could eventually connect to Findlay Creek and Greely, which is directly to the south as those areas further grow. If we ever want to do this, we better protect a ROW, before the area gets too built up.

For the life of me, connecting the Hospital complex to the east seemed to be a priority. No wonder I am losing interest in this whole process.

Yes, bus lanes on Innes.

It's not just the Perley, it's hydro towers, and 3 bridges/tunnels to cross roads.

I don't know if that corridor was ever a real priority.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Are we talking about just bus lanes on Innes? That's what it looks like. So, are we getting away from segregated ROWs, and how practical for later conversion to LRT?

Given the routing, that's probably all it needs. It's a pointless corridor. Most bus traffic from Cumberland would head up to Blair and without the hospital district what's left to serve? The Trainyards development?

I guess we don't want to deal with that difficult section next to the Perley Home so we just avoid it.

That sure seems to be the case.

Funny place for a station on Innes where the Via Rail overpass is. It is really in between things with poor access to anything.

Maybe distance dictated that they put in a station.

As far as the AVTC connecting to Riverside South, check a map, this is way too far east and how would you get it there? This would inevitably be far more expensive than using the existing proposed route using the old CPR ROW. LRT on the AVTC could eventually connect to Findlay Creek and Greely, which is directly to the south as those areas further grow. If we ever want to do this, we better protect a ROW, before the area gets too built up.

That was the idea - go through Findlay Creek/Leitrim before heading west to Riverside South and the corridor there. Conroy would have to be the corridor and it has a large median. As for it being too far east, it's close to being due south of Hurdman and the #99 bus goes through Hurdman after a pile of extra detouring around the airport. At least this detour would pick up riders the whole way.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting tired of business lobbies and institutions influencing our transit decisions. Isn't this about what people and potential customers want?

Exactly. The fact that the hospitals might not want rapid transit for parking revenue reasons is irrelevant. Rapid transit is to serve the people who go there.

I thought the rail corridor south of Innes runs through farm fields. It is only further east that runs along the Mer Bleu bog and there was no plan to run rapid transit along there.

Where it crosses Green's Creek between 417 and the main VIA line - currently crossed by a beautiful stone bridge seen by just about no one - there is a bit of marsh. A bit. Like the width of the creek:


There's also a crossing of a tributary to Green's Creek near the end of the wye east of 417 and Cyrville, which is also a tad marshy (you can just make out the concrete culvert at the end of the line and the marshy vegetation to the left of it):


On the whole, it's not a lot. We'll blow out far more marsh when we extend Terry Fox Drive, which I don't imagine will stop that project. Use of this route might also include a portion running parallel to Green's Creek from around that tributary crossing to Innes, but that's hardly new - the Southwest Transitway runs parallel to Pinecrest Creek (indeed, crosses it thrice) and the Southeast Transitway runs parallel to Sawmill Creek - and it wouldn't be in the creek corridor itself. So really it's an example of finding an excuse.

[Franky]

Is this the 417 crossing you are referring to? It does seem a bit far south and would require crossing the VIA rail line somehow?

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.41243,-75.604177&spn=0.014822,0.030084&z=15

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Good grief! Is that the plan for the Hospital-Innes corridor?

Are we talking about just bus lanes on Innes? That's what it looks like. So, are we getting away from segregated ROWs, and how practical for later conversion to LRT?

And is it more practical now? If they finally understand that they can build rapid transit routes on normal routes, and not spend a fortune, good for them. Conversion is a silly idea.

Also I don't understand, it should be rapid transit and not a new highway, how you want to have a good modal ratio if new roads are being constructed all the time, it's twice the expenses for nothing.

[lrt's friend]

That was the idea - go through Findlay Creek/Leitrim before heading west to Riverside South and the corridor there. Conroy would have to be the corridor and it has a large median. As for it being too far east, it's close to being due south of Hurdman and the #99 bus goes through Hurdman after a pile of extra detouring around the airport. At least this detour would pick up riders the whole way.

Yes, but all the plans still call for the use of the O-Train route to reach downtown which is much more direct for Riverside South. There are absolutely no plans to run rapid transit through Findlay Creek at present. I have seen the community plans and there is no allowance for a right of way. As I said, if this is the plan, they better make allowances for a right of way now, not in 20 years when the area is tightly built up. There is also the question of the Leitrim wetland and how you would connect Findlay Creek community to Riverside South and make it actually useable to residents of Findlay Creek without everybody having to drive to a Park n Ride lot on the periphery. I just can't see the AVTC being used to serve both Findlay Creek and Riverside South. It seems to me that this kind of meandering route is the same issue that killed LRT crossing the Strandherd Bridge to go to Barrhaven (although I still like the idea myself if we really want to capture more non-downtown riders).

[lrt's friend]

Given the routing, that's probably all it needs. It's a pointless corridor. Most bus traffic from Cumberland would head up to Blair and without the hospital district what's left to serve? The Trainyards development?

I definitely agree. Why bother if the only prime destination is still going to be downtown on this route? The General Hospital, and associated health care facilities and new housing was a way to build new ridership, but I just seem to see that new ridership especially away from downtown is not a priority for the city now. I guess the main point of this route will be to re-establish cross town bus routes that LRT will cut off.

[lrt's friend]

Yes, bus lanes on Innes.

It's not just the Perley, it's hydro towers, and 3 bridges/tunnels to cross roads.

I don't know if that corridor was ever a real priority.

The planned route seems to use signalled intersections. Why would this be different for the Hospital corridor? If we want to do this on the cheap, just don't build bridges and tunnels.

Will the addition of bus lanes create a lot of expensive modifications to overpasses and bridges along Innes Road anyways? As it stands there are two rail overpasses and the bridge over Highway 417 that might require significant modification.

If the hospitals remain inaccessible via this route, why are we building it at all? What is the point of spending all this money?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The planned route seems to use signalled intersections. Why would this be different for the Hospital corridor? If we want to do this on the cheap, just don't build bridges and tunnels.

Will the addition of bus lanes create a lot of expensive modifications to overpasses and bridges along Innes Road anyways? As it stands there are two rail overpasses and the bridge over Highway 417 that might require significant modification.

If the hospitals remain inaccessible via this route, why are we building it at all? What is the point of spending all this money?

The 3 intersections are close together. I think even a route along Innes could be converted to LRT with synchronized traffic signals (they seem spread out enough and on a major route). Also, I would expect that traffic along Innes flows better than traffic at Industrial, just West of St. Laurent (because of that intersection of 2 busy roads).

Don't know if any mods will be needed when capacity exceeds Dedicated bus lane capacity. Perhaps at that time, all the infrastructure will need replacing anyway. Perhaps a better option will exist.

The Hospital was never a priority, the (non hospital) development next to it was I believe. This development also motivates the $80 million(?) AVTC phase I "Hospital Link".

[Deez]

I paid a visit to the DOTT maintenance and storage yard PIC this evening. Given the gorgeous weather outside, I wasn't surprised that the only other person in attendance was David Jeanes (talking about how he once toured Houston MetroRail's yard at 3:30am to watch the techs perform tests on the stock before the morning peak).

The 10 sites evaluated were: Bayview, Hurdman (north of station), Hurdman (south of station), PWGSC's Tremblay Rd property, OC's St. Laurent property, the east and west sides of St. Laurent at Industrial, Algoma north of the CN tracks, the northeast corner of the 417/174 split, the northwest corner of Pineview Golf Course, and Rockcliffe Parkway at the 174.

At the outset, I thought Pineview would be a shoe-in, but it lacks the benefit of a heavy rail connection that would greatly facilitate the transportation of rolling stock (of course, if Kinki Sharyo wins the bid, that isn't an issue). The top 3 candidates that will be receiving further study are Bayview, Hurdman North, and St. Laurent (St. L. received the highest score in the prelim evaluation).

Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if Bayview or Hurdman were chosen because of their huge potential for TOD. After Lebreton, they are probably the best two brownfield sites in the city. Choosing St Laurent would likely require the relocation of some (or potentially all) of the existing bus storage and maintenance facilities, but I see this as an opportunity to build garages in Kanata and Orleans to reduce deadheading for express and rural express service.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if Bayview or Hurdman were chosen because of their huge potential for TOD. After Lebreton, they are probably the best two brownfield sites in the city. Choosing St Laurent would likely require the relocation of some (or potentially all) of the existing bus storage and maintenance facilities, but I see this as an opportunity to build garages in Kanata and Orleans to reduce deadheading for express and rural express service.

You mentioned Hurdman North? I thought the lands was hands off because of ownership by the Federal Government. If it's not the case, why the major U shape for the station then? The rail go be further North.

[Dado]

I don't see what's wrong with Hurdman North if this is what is being referred to:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...7&spn=0.005212,0.009645&t=h&z=17&iwloc=A

That piece of land is surrounded on three sides by major transportation infrastructure and it's on former railway lands as well. That part of the site isn't exactly prime TOD potential.

For comparison, this is Calgary's newest yard in the NE (still under early construction in this picture) and it's about the same size as the space at Hurdman (the metric scales change numbers but the imperial doesn't and it only shifts slightly):
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...13.978187&spn=0.004662,0.009645&t=h&z=17
The older Anderson yard is here, and it's a shared bus garage too:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...14.075197&spn=0.004677,0.009645&t=h&z=17

So there's definitely room enough for a large facility there. I'd agree that west and southwest of Hurdman would be a loss for TOD, but not NE. The area due north of Hurdman could be used for a civic institution of some sort.

[Deez]

The site under consideration is due north of Hurdman. While it may not be as prime for TOD as Lebreton or Bayview, the intersection of two transit lines is too good of an opportunity to waste on a yard.

[adrimm]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

No bus terminals downtown, thank you very much. Especially, no bus terminals at ground level in a shopping area downtown, which will take away from street level attractiveness for pedestrians. Transit should for the most part flow through downtown with the terminals away from downtown. Hurdman is a good example today.

I think it is very important to have transit going right to downtown.. and while something like BRT may not be the best idea to have as primary downtown transport (trolley or streetcar would be nice), I think it essential for any regional-scale system to pass through or within 1 block of major downtown destinations.

I also think that if any surface system is developed (BRT or LRT) investment in stations is absolutely essential. Fare payment can be integrated, transit users can be sheltered, possibly heated or cooled, boarding can be fast. Stations should be located as central as or as near to destinations as possible, and having them in a median of an existing street puts transit users right into the action, and enables to system to avoid time consuming pull-outs and exchanges. If means making a street a transit mall, so be it.


from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/99887786@N00/107068591/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_penquista/846502981/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/itdp/3347801620/sizes/m/in/set-72157615117948498/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3647378411_008b38b93b.jpg

Anyone who designs a BRT as cheap alternative, will get just that. Yes the costs of a full-featured BRT may compare to a basic LRT, but those extra features can greatly add to comfort for riders, and show commitment from the transit authority. If finances permit down the road there is no reason that the same infrastructure (stations) can be used with a rail vehicle resulting in a top notch system.

Venezuela is also experimenting with trolley-bus BRT.



What is best for Ottawa? I have no idea. But to be honest after riding the TransMilenio, I can't really call many other "BRTs" in North America full-featured BRTs.

BRT comparison:

source: Appendix 1 pf ITDP's BRT planning guide.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by adrimm

BRT comparison:

source: Appendix 1 pf ITDP's BRT planning guide.

This chart isn't too accurate as far as Ottawa's Transitway is concerned (2nd column).

Items 3 through 5 are given as exes when they should be checks. For ridership over 6000 (or 8000 - can't tell) there is an ex where there should be a check. They've also got an ex beside intersection priority and grade separation.

I suppose that downtown a lot of these exes are valid but then the ridership number certainly isn't.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

Is this the 417 crossing you are referring to? It does seem a bit far south and would require crossing the VIA rail line somehow?

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.41243,-75.604177&spn=0.014822,0.030084&z=15

No, it's further north.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...75.603114&spn=0.005212,0.009645&t=h&z=17

It's the former CPR line to Montreal (itself the former Montreal & Ottawa, or M&O) and this short stretch of track is now known as the M&O Wye. VIA currently uses this wye for turning locomotives around but it could also be used in the future for high speed rail to Montreal. That might actually be a reasonable excuse not to use it, but it would also have required knowledge of long term railway plans on the part of those making the excuse, so the excuse of marshes was used instead.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

No, it's further north.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geo...75.603114&spn=0.005212,0.009645&t=h&z=17

It's the former CPR line to Montreal (itself the former Montreal & Ottawa, or M&O) and this short stretch of track is now known as the M&O Wye. VIA currently uses this wye for turning locomotives around but it could also be used in the future for high speed rail to Montreal. That might actually be a reasonable excuse not to use it, but it would also have required knowledge of long term railway plans on the part of those making the excuse, so the excuse of marshes was used instead.

Yes, that's what I was looking at, the Wye. The set of tracks going south is being used by VIA, so an LRT/BRT line would have to cross it somehow, somewhere, no? The track also seems to lie where there is no development (yet?).

[p_xavier]

Weird, it's the first time I see a city official not calling the new rapid transit system LRT, but a metro. And he's not just naming it that way once...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Rail+project+shows+Ottawa+right+track/1742534/story.html

[MalcolmTucker]

^ They have been getting lots of push back for needing to put their LRT in a tunnel, while other cities do not get that luxury. While calling it a metro does not solve the actual problem, it solves a perception problem.