Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[RTWAP]

I found the report a little disappointing. It seems the argument basically boiled down to whether segregation was good or bad. It reduces operating costs and increases capacity, but it costs more to build. What I didn't see mentioned in the report is what impact more segregation would have on transit times. Segregation allows shorter headways, reduced delays when dealing with other traffic. That means people wait less time for the next train to show up, and they get where they're going quicker.

What impact would that have on demand?

It's completely ignored in the report. Ridership projections seem to be completely independent of technology choices.

Some apparently valid criticisms of light metro fully segregated systems are that lower-volume peripheral unsegregated systems would be isolated if a different technology was used in the core. That leads to duplication of maintenance yard costs, as well as the complication that results from using two different technologies at the same time.

Another criticism was that riders of those peripheral unsegregated systems would require transfers to enter a light metro core.

I wasn't aware of any plans to build peripheral unsegregated systems. The consultants seem to have concluded that the higher capital cost for segregation precluded it entirely.

It seems to me that the costs of segregation become lower as you move into the low density areas of the city. Running segregated across the greenbelt, where there are few or no crossing streets is the perfect place for segregation. We've paid the high cost of segregation in the core, and will be building a tunnel to connect the near-east and near-west segregation corridors, but we're bailing on using it fully because we're not willing to continue with it in cheaper areas.

It's like the tail is wagging the dog.

At the end of the day, I'd really like to know what the difference would be in travel time for a Kanata or Barrhaven to Downtown rider. If it would be 28 minutes versus 33 minutes (to pick numbers out of the air) then cheaper is probably better. But if it's a difference between 28 minutes and 43 minutes then I we'll miss out on getting a whole bunch of cars off the road, and we'll keep paying the cost of those vehicle miles for generations.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ As long as you run the LRT like a railway like it is in Calgary and Edmonton then travel times will not increase at all when you change the amount of road crossings, beyond the different accelerations aspects of different vehicle types compared to light metro or metro trains.

Now, if the roads you are crossing are close to capacity you might end up causing big delays on those roads but otherwise no biggie. Using low floor LRT out in the suburbs will really decrease costs, as you can build walk up stations, run trains in transit malls, next to or in the median of arterial roads and other such things.

[c_speed3108]

A station concept

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/10/21/11481671.html

[Franky]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I found the report a little disappointing. It seems the argument basically boiled down to whether segregation was good or bad. It reduces operating costs and increases capacity, but it costs more to build. What I didn't see mentioned in the report is what impact more segregation would have on transit times. Segregation allows shorter headways, reduced delays when dealing with other traffic. That means people wait less time for the next train to show up, and they get where they're going quicker.

What impact would that have on demand?

It's completely ignored in the report. Ridership projections seem to be completely independent of technology choices.

Some apparently valid criticisms of light metro fully segregated systems are that lower-volume peripheral unsegregated systems would be isolated if a different technology was used in the core. That leads to duplication of maintenance yard costs, as well as the complication that results from using two different technologies at the same time.

Another criticism was that riders of those peripheral unsegregated systems would require transfers to enter a light metro core.

I wasn't aware of any plans to build peripheral unsegregated systems. The consultants seem to have concluded that the higher capital cost for segregation precluded it entirely.

It seems to me that the costs of segregation become lower as you move into the low density areas of the city. Running segregated across the greenbelt, where there are few or no crossing streets is the perfect place for segregation. We've paid the high cost of segregation in the core, and will be building a tunnel to connect the near-east and near-west segregation corridors, but we're bailing on using it fully because we're not willing to continue with it in cheaper areas.

It's like the tail is wagging the dog.

At the end of the day, I'd really like to know what the difference would be in travel time for a Kanata or Barrhaven to Downtown rider. If it would be 28 minutes versus 33 minutes (to pick numbers out of the air) then cheaper is probably better. But if it's a difference between 28 minutes and 43 minutes then I we'll miss out on getting a whole bunch of cars off the road, and we'll keep paying the cost of those vehicle miles for generations.

Nicely put.

The report doesn't consider the possibility of running more (shorter) trains (because they are automated) and ridership implications.

How platform lengths are affected by higher frequencies made possible with automation. Perhaps obviating the need to modify the transitways.

How many less trains are needed (exactly, the information is available instead they give these useless estimates from other cities) given automation allows higher frequencies. Also the maintenance/yard implications of having less cars.

I'm sure there's more...

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ As long as you run the LRT like a railway like it is in Calgary and Edmonton then travel times will not increase at all when you change the amount of road crossings, beyond the different accelerations aspects of different vehicle types compared to light metro or metro trains.

Now, if the roads you are crossing are close to capacity you might end up causing big delays on those roads but otherwise no biggie. Using low floor LRT out in the suburbs will really decrease costs, as you can build walk up stations, run trains in transit malls, next to or in the median of arterial roads and other such things.

There are very busy roads that would need to be crossed. Hunt Club at Woodroffe is no picnic at rush hour.

One of my fears is that having chosen a technology with the intention of running it in mixed mode (segregated and unsegregated) they will find lots of reasons to run in unsegregated mode, which will slow the whole thing down. They do declare that the Dominion to Lincoln Fields corridor must have full segregation. "As a minimum the core of the network (Baseline to Blair), which carries the highest volumes and has the highest demand for reliable service, needs to be fully segregated."

But I have not seen any realistic proposal from the city staff or consultants on how they expect to accomplish that. I can't imagine the NCC allowing it on the Parkway, and the path isn't really suitable in the western end of the Parkway. It looks like cut and cover in the Byron Tramway or some hybrid approach of cross-street closures, and elevation changes.

On a vaguely related topic, looking at the route through the core, and the distance between Carleton Station and Hurdman, I wonder if they will ever complete the loop and connect those two stations (with a new station at Landowne as well). It would probably only make sense if the downtown core network was nearing capacity and enough riders were traveling east-west between Hurdman and West or South to make diverting the traffic Southward a good bet. For example, traffic coming from Kanata and Barrhaven would divert onto the N-S line at Bayview and then branch off at Carleton and meet up with the main E-W line at Hurdman. Traffic from Riverside would divert off the N-S at Carleton, significantly shortening the journey.

I wonder how many people would be working/living in different 'suburbs'. Given the city's priority for developing mixed use communities, and the federal government's apparent interest in building office space outside the core, there might be more and more families with some members living/working/going to school outside the core. If you lived in Riverside South and attended Ottawa U, would you rather go to Bayview and then across the core (Carleton-Carling-Bayview-Lebreton-Downtown West-Downtown East- Rideau-Campus), or branch at Carleton to Hurdman (Carleton-Lansdowne-Hurdman-Lees-Campus). 5 stations instead of 8, and avoiding the congestion downtown, but you'd probably have to switch directions at Hurdman.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

A station concept

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/10/21/11481671.html

Ugg, platform screen doors? So they are going to require them at every station which totally negates the whole not being grade separated thing in the suburbs?

I also understand the switchbacks on the accesses since it saves money, but if your building a Cadillac why not put in a single escalator all the way up to the concourse. Also, might be a good idea to build the concourse big enough to put in ticketing barriers if you decided to do so in the future. I am not sure if 20,000 p/d/h wil be able to move through the station (assuming the predicted travel through downtown needed always includes an exit at one of the downtown stations)

I think the video really makes the case for one of the shallower routes.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Ugg, platform screen doors? So they are going to require them at every station which totally negates the whole not being grade separated thing in the suburbs?

I also understand the switchbacks on the accesses since it saves money, but if your building a Cadillac why not put in a single escalator all the way up to the concourse. Also, might be a good idea to build the concourse big enough to put in ticketing barriers if you decided to do so in the future. I am not sure if 20,000 p/d/h wil be able to move through the station (assuming the predicted travel through downtown needed always includes an exit at one of the downtown stations)

I think the video really makes the case for one of the shallower routes.

Yah it did seems like a long way down....which sorta in a way eats away at the idea of having less stations since effectively you have a longer trip down into the station, effectively making the train further away. I suppose there is probably engineering reason. I suppose the key will be to make sure the different levels seem to have a point to them..ie fare control, shopping, ticket booth and finally trains on the bottom.

I am also don't think they could do 20000, unless they build far more exits since with only 2 exits that is 166 a minute a each exit...average.

I do like the idea on the entrances being on different sides of the street. That is nicely designed.

[AuxTown]

New transit system needed to avoid gridlock
Downtown to face endless traffic jams without plan, staff members warn councillors

By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen October 22, 2009

The city needs to build its new public transit system to avoid facing gridlock downtown beginning in 2017, councillors were told Wednesday.

Nancy Schepers and Alain Mercier, two senior staff members planning the ambitious new system at the city, told city council's transit committee and reporters that the new system -- with its tunnel downtown and electric trains -- is essential, if the city wants to avoid endless traffic jams and wants to have continued growth.

"We will continue to try to extract as much capacity as we can downtown. But there comes a point when you can't do any more," said Schepers, one of two deputy city managers.

"If it breaks down, everybody knows, you end up sitting in traffic. That doesn't work," Schepers told reporters.

"If you really want to handle the volume you have to go with this system."

Schepers confirmed to councillors that the technology her staff are recommending for Ottawa's new rail-transit system is light rail with overhead wires, rather than a metro rail system, which requires its own completely separate corridor -- underground or elevated, or fenced off if it's at ground level.

Unlike the metro system, the light-rail technology allows the city to have trains at street level in certain locations. The city's analysis also says light rail copes well with Canadian weather, tears up the city less during construction, and costs less to build than metro rail, which is akin to Toronto's subways.

The technology report acknowledges that the metro would do a better job of getting large numbers of riders through the city core. As well, the metro machines would last longer.

But the light-rail trains, travelling through a downtown tunnel, would still represent a huge increase in transportation capacity for Ottawa.

About 20,000 riders per hour would be able to ride in each direction on the trains, close to double the current capacity of the street-level bus system.

Currently, about 180 buses an hour go through downtown during the busiest parts of the day and packed buses are often lined up along Albert and Slater streets. While the city can't put more buses into the core, and is taking some express buses out of the downtown corridor, Mercier said 60-foot articulated buses will replace the 40-foot vehicles as a way to increase capacity over the next few years.

But he said beyond that, there's no way to get more people through the central part of the city on buses.

Under the new transit plan approved in November 2008 by council: a tunnel is to be built; the rail corridor is to be built from Blair Station to Tunney's Pasture and ultimately Baseline Station; rail is to be built to the southern suburban communities; and the bus system is to be expanded in the outlying parts of the city.

The city says that building the new system would reduce the number of buses going through downtown from 2,600 a day to 600. OC Transpo struggles to generate half of its revenues from fares with the bus system, but planners estimate fares would cover 55 to 60 per cent of the transit system's operating costs due to higher volumes of riders and economies of scale with the trains.

The system would be designed to accommodate up to six cars per train. During rush hours, the system could be automated through the downtown area and trains could arrive every two minutes.

The trains have low floors and reach speeds of up to 80 kilometres an hour where stops are farther apart.

Mercier said current riders would save up to 25 minutes a day with the new underground rail system, compared with the bus system.

Mercier and Schepers were making their appearance before the transit committee two days before Schepers is to release a memorandum on the costs of the city's new transit plan, specifically the price of the downtown tunnel.

Within the overall estimated $5-billion cost of the entire series of transit projects to be completed by 2031, the tunnel has been estimated to cost $600 million. But those figures have only been high-level planning estimates.

There will be an open house at city hall about the rail technology on Oct. 26, starting at 5:30 p.m. There will be a presentation from staff at 7 p.m.

Transit committee is expected to discuss and vote on the technology recommendation Nov. 18, then city council has a final say on Nov. 25.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

What are we waiting for? The experts have spoken. I know all you guys think you're experts :-), but now the real experts have spoken.

[adam-machiavelli]

Did anyone see Denley's editorial today. Considering all his articles, I think we can officially say that that guy hates everything, anything and anyone.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Ugg, platform screen doors? So they are going to require them at every station which totally negates the whole not being grade separated thing in the suburbs?

I think the barriers are there so they can automate the system within the tunnel. The trains are automatically aligned with the sliding doors, and avoids accidents or suicidal people from jeopardizing the system.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I also understand the switchbacks on the accesses since it saves money, but if your building a Cadillac why not put in a single escalator all the way up to the concourse.

A single escalator means a long way to walk if it breaks down (and they often do). Having several reduces the chances of having to climb the entire distance. Also shorter escalators are easier to maintain — less weight and distance means less wear and tear.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I think the barriers are there so they can automate the system within the tunnel. The trains are automatically aligned with the sliding doors, and avoids accidents or suicidal people from jeopardizing the system.

Skytrain doesn't have screen doors, and it operates fine. Having them also sticks you with one model of trainset. What if they discontinue your model after your first phase and before the second phase? You have to go out and change your doors or buy custom trainsets. Little benefit for lots of cost since you also need the automatic train control to line up correctly.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Skytrain doesn't have screen doors, and it operates fine. Having them also sticks you with one model of trainset. What if they discontinue your model after your first phase and before the second phase? You have to go out and change your doors or buy custom trainsets. Little benefit for lots of cost since you also need the automatic train control to line up correctly.

LRT trainset lengths do not really vary that much, plus they pretty well can locate the doors any where you like them when you order them. I don't mind the barriers, they add a measure of security, not just from people falling in but from ill-intentioned characters walking into the tunnel – remember Mr. Watson's comment about terrorists?

I think the automation option will have benefits since they are talking about interlining routes in the central core in the future. With frequent headways in the tunnel, the possibility of collisions increase if the trains are manually operated

[lrt's friend]

I almost dropped on the floor when Nancy Schepers was interviewed yesterday. She actually had the nerve to claim that LRT will save an Orleans resident 20 to 25 minutes on their travel time. How is that possible?
The 95 schedule between Blair and Lebreton is 22 minutes during peak periods. Maybe, if there is a problem, but presumably on most occasions they can meet schedule reasonably well. I guess LRT will move people at the speed of light and there will be massive gusts of wind to blow you out of the 10 storey deep stations in an instant. Why do we hear such garbage from a public official who should know better?

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I almost dropped on the floor when Nancy Schepers was interviewed yesterday. She actually had the nerve to claim that LRT will save an Orleans resident 20 to 25 minutes on their travel time. How is that possible?
The 95 schedule between Blair and Lebreton is 22 minutes during peak periods. Maybe, if there is a problem, but presumably on most occasions they can meet schedule reasonably well. I guess LRT will move people at the speed of light and there will be massive gusts of wind to blow you out of the 10 storey deep stations in an instant. Why do we hear such garbage?

You don't take the bus do you? Try 22 minutes from Elgin to uOttawa in the afternoon! The transitway westbound in the a.m. and eastbound in the p.m. is so far above capacity that there are regular delays of 10-15 minutes around Rideau Centre where the buses just line up and sit there. In the winter the extra riders and bad weather can double that delay. There are similar delays for those going to and from the West, but not to the same extent. The Transitway is way above capacity at peak periods and we've been starting to feel it in terms of comute time over the last few years. This will only get worse. I think 25 minutes is a very generous estimate, but 10-15 minutes at peak periods would not surprise me one bit.

[waterloowarrior]

Could be 20-25 min per day?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

You don't take the bus do you? Try 22 minutes from Elgin to uOttawa in the afternoon! The transitway westbound in the a.m. and eastbound in the p.m. is so far above capacity that there are regular delays of 10-15 minutes around Rideau Centre where the buses just line up and sit there. In the winter the extra riders and bad weather can double that delay. There are similar delays for those going to and from the West, but not to the same extent. The Transitway is way above capacity at peak periods and we've been starting to feel it in terms of comute time over the last few years. This will only get worse. I think 25 minutes is a very generous estimate, but 10-15 minutes at peak periods would not surprise me one bit.

Just took the bus. Hurdman to Rideau centre - no problem, no delays despite there being only 2 lanes on the Mackenzie King bridge. An articulated bus stalled or something (it was raining... those things are lemons, wonder how the double decks are doing?) but other buses were able to drive around with very little delays.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Could be 20-25 min per day?

I think so.

From O-Town Hockey's copy of Patrick Dare's article in the Citizen.

Mercier said current riders would save up to 25 minutes a day with the new underground rail system, compared with the bus system.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

You don't take the bus do you? Try 22 minutes from Elgin to uOttawa in the afternoon! The transitway westbound in the a.m. and eastbound in the p.m. is so far above capacity that there are regular delays of 10-15 minutes around Rideau Centre where the buses just line up and sit there. In the winter the extra riders and bad weather can double that delay. There are similar delays for those going to and from the West, but not to the same extent. The Transitway is way above capacity at peak periods and we've been starting to feel it in terms of comute time over the last few years. This will only get worse. I think 25 minutes is a very generous estimate, but 10-15 minutes at peak periods would not surprise me one bit.

I don't live or work downtown, but I have never experienced that kind of delay in the many times I have used the Transitway from downtown. In fact, I can generally get from downtown to South Keys in no more than 20 minutes. Do you realize how long 22 minutes really is? If you are on a bus stuck in traffic, 5 minutes may feel like 22 minutes, but it still isn't 22 minutes.

The interview was on CJOH and the question was specifically, how much faster will it take to get from Orleans to downtown by LRT. The answer was 20 to 25 minutes. There was no suggestion that this was a two way savings, and even if it were, Nancy was not providing an honest answer to a very clear question.

[lrt's friend]

Ha, Mercier says "Up to 25 minutes". What crap information. This is like a sale that says 'up to 75% off' when only one item in the store offers this saving. We need to hear average time savings. I believe it will be close to 0 minutes (or even worse) if you fairly include transfer delays and time to use the massive escalators.

[Kitchissippi]

You can easily waste 20 to 25 minutes downtown waiting for the right bus to come along in the afternoon