Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

It's still part of Ottawa. Who owns what is not important. Claridge owns this lot, NCC owns that, Domicile owns the next. The city needs to do a better job of working with all developers. The relationship with NCC is obviously a more complicated one, but still. . . the Daly site ended up with a condo building on it. That's the best they could do? After all those years?

Well, since it wasn't a snap decision, it probably was the best they could do. I was pretty disappointed with the result. The city lost something there.

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

I would have no issue with that idea. I think the GB is i nice idea, they just did it without taking into account how big the city would get, and especially after amalgamation, and as a result it now acts as a detriment to smart growth of the city.



Which is why I said they weren't a grown-up city.

The problem is that even if there were a visionary mayor or somehow some sort of concrete plan were hatched, with every new mayor, the chain gets broken and stuff gets ruined.

[Kitchissippi]

The Greenbelt did not cause urban sprawl. What caused it was the poor planning of the old municipalities of Nepean, Gloucester, Kanata and Cumberland who all wanted wider tax bases by attracting more suburban residents. The Greenbelt now actually encourages intensification, as the choice between denser living space and longer commutes becomes amplified. The area within the Greenbelt can easily hold 1.5 million or more residents through intensified development.

Where I disagree with the TMP is that I think electric LRT should be extended just beyond the Greenbelt as soon as possible so that commuting across it becomes less polluting.

[waterloowarrior]

McGuinty to city: Transit plan too costly
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/McGuinty+city+Transit+plan+costly/2155365/story.html

BY LEE GREENBERG AND PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 28, 2009 3:28 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


TORONTO – Ottawa’s 20-year, $6.6-billion transit plan was dealt a heavy blow Wednesday when Premier Dalton McGuinty suggested city officials need to come up with a more affordable alternative.

“In fairness, I think costs have escalated rather dramatically in terms of estimates,” the Ottawa-born McGuinty told reporters Wednesday at Queen’s Park. “I think what we need to do now is to sit down in a very sober-minded way, talk this through and decide what it is we can all afford.”

Late last week, city officials announced the estimated cost of the first phase of the plan, which is to include a massive underground tunnel, had jumped 50 per cent, rising to $2.1 billion from the original estimate of $1.4 billion.

They blamed rising costs on expansion of the tunnel in addition to increased management and land acquisition costs.

The province, which in the past has funded one-third of the cost of such projects (along with the federal government and the city itself) would be expected to pay at least $700 million.

That demand is significantly higher than the $200 million McGuinty pledged for light rail in 2004.

While Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson responded to the new costing figures by questioning the city’s ability to manage costs of such a large project, McGuinty put a happier face on his scepticism about the plan Wednesday. He said he was “very optimistic” about finding an alternative.

“It’s easy to get sidetracked on this stuff,” he told reporters. “The city of Ottawa and the people of Ottawa want to build a new public transit system. Well, we’ve got an Ontario government that wants to support them in that effort. The issue is how much can we do and how quickly can we do it and how much is it all going to cost. Those are real issues.”

Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod said Wednesday that McGuinty should have aired his thoughts earlier in the process.

“It’s as if he hasn’t been paying attention to the debate and funding applications,” she said. “He should have been having these discussions with the mayor earlier.”

It is unclear how a rethink of the current plan would occur. Ministry of Transportation officials are reviewing the feasibility and costing of the plan. They will make a recommendation and the plan will then be subject to political evaluation by local Liberal MPPs, including McGuinty.

Ottawa’s transit aspirations are set against a backdrop of nasty political squabbling between the province, councillors and Mayor Larry O’Brien.

Some MPPs have complained about what they see as an unprecedented level of provincial meddling in Ottawa’s plans. They have singled out Jim Watson’s interventions, calling on the former mayor to clarify his intentions on the city’s upcoming election. Watson, who has downplayed the current Mayor’s transit plan at every turn, has long been rumoured as a potential candidate in that race.

Councillor Peter Hume, one of the councillors who have been dealing with the provincial government on the transit file, said he was not discouraged by the premier’s remarks. He said it was a “very positive signal” that McGuinty expressed interest in sitting down and talking.

“Let’s put the politics aside and get down to business. That’s a good thing,” said Hume. “How do we move forward together?”

Last week the city released more detailed estimates for its new public transit plan that forecast total costs to rise from about $5 billion to $6.6 billion over the next 20 years.

The proposed downtown tunnel and related light-rail corridor from Blair Station to Tunney’s Pasture would cost $2.1 billion, rather than $1.4 billion in early cost estimates.

The transit tunnel and underground stations would cost $735 million, rather than $600 million. Converting the transitway from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road would cost $540 million. The maintenance facility and rail vehicles add up to $515 million. Property, public art and insurance would cost $160 million and the project would cost $50 million to manage.

Hume said other cities with big transit projects, such as Waterloo and Toronto, have also seen costs rise. But he said Ottawa is getting special attention due to its “false start” with the cancelled north-south rail project.

Hume said, in retrospect, the city should have jointly planned the new transit plan with the provincial government to ensure such a key partner was on board from the start.

Hume added that there is no way the transit plan can proceed without the provincial government’s help, not only because of the need for provincial and federal funding but also because the city needs the province to manage the project.

The city is counting on Infrastructure Ontario to run the procurement. Hume said that’s because the city “lacks credibility in the marketplace” because the original light-rail plan, running from south Nepean to the University of Ottawa, was cancelled after the contract was signed.

The city has just paid $36.7 million to a consortium of companies that were to build the project, to settle a lawsuit.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Cre47]

Yep they can afford spending billions for the GTA's transit improvements, yet when it comes to Ottawa and for a lot less a different story. Maybe because Ottawa only has 7 electoral ridings versus the 40 + seats in the GTA.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Yep they can afford spending billions for the GTA's transit improvements, yet when it comes to Ottawa and for a lot less a different story. Maybe because Ottawa only has 7 electoral ridings versus the 40 + seats in the GTA.

Well it makes sense - Ottawa has 1/6th the population, has to get by on 1/6th the money. If Ottawa wants the LRT, it has to decided to stop building other stuff, like more transitway. Only so much money to go around.

I don't think the city could even pay the 1/3rd share anyways of the Cadillac plan so who cares? There is a reason the programs require cities to put skin in the game as it helps rationalize and prioritize projects.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well it makes sense - Ottawa has 1/6th the population, has to get by on 1/6th the money. If Ottawa wants the LRT, it has to decided to stop building other stuff, like more transitway. Only so much money to go around.

I don't think the city could even pay the 1/3rd share anyways of the Cadillac plan so who cares? There is a reason the programs require cities to put skin in the game as it helps rationalize and prioritize projects.

Ottawa has about 30% the population of the City of Toronto, and urban Ottawa has about one-quarter.

One constitutional argument can be made that the federal government and not Queen's Park should be paying since it is an interprovincial body, but that would create a huge uproar elsewhere in Canada.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Ottawa has about 30% the population of the City of Toronto, and urban Ottawa has about one-quarter.

One constitutional argument can be made that the federal government and not Queen's Park should be paying since it is an interprovincial body, but that would create a huge uproar elsewhere in Canada.

CMAs...

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well it makes sense - Ottawa has 1/6th the population, has to get by on 1/6th the money. If Ottawa wants the LRT, it has to decided to stop building other stuff, like more transitway. Only so much money to go around.

I don't think the city could even pay the 1/3rd share anyways of the Cadillac plan so who cares? There is a reason the programs require cities to put skin in the game as it helps rationalize and prioritize projects.

You can look at just the TTC and York Region... for Sheppard, Eglinton, Scarborough RT, and Finch West they got $8.2 billion, $1.5 billion for Spadina subway, $1.4 billion for York VIVA expansion... that's $11.1 billion (over 5 times Ottawa's request) and that doesn't even include the billions for GO Transit and the funding for Brampton Accelaride, Missisauga BRT, Durham, replacement streetcars and subway cars etc. Or any of the long term plans like subway to Richmond Hill, Don Mills LRT, new Downtown Core subway, etc

And the TTC projects especially were subject to big cost estimate increases, Eglinton and Sheppard both doubled

[Rathgrith]

Originally Posted by Franky

             +---------------------------+
             |          station          |
-------------+                           +-----------------------------------------------------------
   \              buses stop here             /
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     ---------------------------------------------------
                                               /                                    \   passing lane
---------------------------------------------     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     ---------------
                                                /          buses stop here        \
----------------------------------------------------+                          +---------------------
                                                    |          station         |
                                                    +--------------------------+

The "/" lane shifts would obviously be smoother.

I foresee a couple of head on collisions taking place at rush hour while the bus driver is yelling at a passenger for not giving correct change. The Transitway is the freeway for buses; best to leave the lanes uni-directional.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

If it's a reliable, efficient transit service, it will spur development in close proximity. It's happened in other places. It's not necessarily development that wouldn't have happened anyway, but the where and the how can be affected.

If it has that effect, I say great. As much as you might look at it as a neutral trade-off, the fact is that anything which encourages development inside the greenbelt is a good thing. If a rail system makes a highrise residential proposal suddenly more attractive in the core than in the suburbs, then that's a net win for a sustainable city.

How would the rail system with a tunnel make that highrise residential proposal more attractive when it provides little or no improvement in travel? I agree that reliable transit service is important, but the other alternatives (surface LRT on Albert, optimized bus tunnel, etc.) would have reliability that would be almost as good. And in other key aspects (less wait, faster walking times, greater coverage, etc.), they would be better.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If you want a visual, someone did one for Toronto in another forum

What would a visual for Ottawa look like? Wouldn’t you see concentration of development around some Transitway Stations (downtown, Hurdman, Lincoln Fields, Westboro, Tunney’s, Laurier, Campus, Lees, etc.)?

Of course, that development is unlikely to be as impressive as in Toronto since Ottawa is five times smaller and nowhere near as congested.

And it is not "a wash", because in the end TOD is far cheaper to service than far flung development. Why else would planners be advocating it?

Development patterns should seek to maximize social welfare. The minimization of servicing costs should be one factor that is taken into account, but certainly not the only one. Otherwise, all of us would be living in 50-storey apartment buildings like they do in Hong Kong. That would minimize servicing costs, yet it would not be socially optimal for us.

But more importantly, what makes you certain that the people deciding to live in TOD around rail stations would be people that would have otherwise decided to live in far flung development?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Suzie

How would the rail system with a tunnel make that highrise residential proposal more attractive when it provides little or no improvement in travel? I agree that reliable transit service is important, but the other alternatives (surface LRT on Albert, optimized bus tunnel, etc.) would have reliability that would be almost as good. And in other key aspects (less wait, faster walking times, greater coverage, etc.), they would be better.

Good ol rail bias, comes from the permanence of rail and the legibility of the route. That it is illogical does not change the fact that it exists, and planning should take advantage of it. (no advantage in this respect over surface rail, only over the bus tunnel).

I guess a good example of this is Seattle. They have LRT which runs at 7.5 minute headways with two cars, which they built into a bus tunnel. Why did they not just build a busway? They went to considerable expense to do so, and even closed their bus tunnel for 2 years to do so.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ Rail bias, and the subsequent development effect have been described in many academic papers. I think Portland's Streetcar line is the en vogue example to use these days, since before it was put it there was a bus that provided the exact same service, at the same intervals, same fare.

After the rail line went in if my memory is correct around $3 billion dollars worth of development in the vicinity that academics have attributed to the streetcar.

Has there ever been an academic paper that compared urban development over the past 25 years in Ottawa (extensive busway) with say Calgary (extensive surface LRT), Edmonton (limited rail tunnel) and Winnipeg (no rapid transit)? That would be a lot more relevant than what has or has not happened in Portland, Oregon.

The literature that I am familiar with is much more modest when it comes to the development impacts of new rapid transit systems such as BART (probably the most studied of all the systems) and the Washington Metro. This is not surprising given the high levels of auto ownership, extensive suburbanization/decentralization and widespread availability of free parking (factors that are also in play for Ottawa). As well, these new rail transit systems typically took over from bus systems that were vastly inferior to our Transitway system so their development impacts should be much greater than what would occur here.

Of course rail doesn't create development from a vacuum, it just changes where it is, and what build form it takes. However, since the build form ends up generating positive externalities while reducing negative ones this change is viewed as a positive.

This can be observed in downtown Toronto when you compared the development radiating out on streetcar streets vs non streetcar streets.

In the end it is either a cultural or instinctual bias that effects our choices. Either you can fight the choices and try to implement the optimal solution, or embrace it and choose the one that will result in the best outcome for society (the most surplus generated). There is a reason the market created streetcar suburbs and not motorbus suburbs back when the free market dictated much more of our mass transportation choices.

A long, long time ago, the market created streetcar suburbs because the streetcar was, at the time, the fastest transport technology available and made vast tracts of land accessible (as an aside, this helped create sprawl). When the automobile began to appear, the streetcar lost its dominance (in fact, it became hopelessly outclassed, particularly in the suburbs) and began to suffer huge losses in ridership and in money. The market completely stopped creating streetcar suburbs. Later on, the market did not create motorbus suburbs because the motorbus was not the fastest, most flexible and most convenient transport technology available. That was the automobile. The market thus created automobile suburbs and still does.

As for property values, improvements in one area do not reduce values in others. That would be true in a closed system with a fixed money supply, but our system is open with an ever expanding money supply. Plus adding rail is a real improvement, which creates real value. It is like saying a computer chip is not worth more than its elemental components, and that if it was worth more, then the rest of sand and metals is worth even less. We know this isn't true since you can create value by transforming things with labour. Plus, if your consuming a good and the supply is fixed the price should go up. If the rail system gets intensive enough I am sure there will be extra value for being far away from any rail for the small subset that doesn't enjoy superior transportation choices.

In the case of the system being proposed for Ottawa, I doubt you’ll see much higher land values through the capitalization of travel cost savings because there won’t be any savings or they will be very marginal. If you believe that constrained transportation capacity is the main barrier to increased development in downtown Ottawa (something I would seriously question, at least for the short and medium term), the City might benefit from some additional agglomeration economies and this would increase land values. However, the expensive rail tunnel plan is not the only way to achieve this increased capacity.

So basically, any increased demand near stations will be because being away from those stations will become a lot less convenient for transit users (because of the transfers, etc.). I am baffled that people view this as a good thing given the negative impact on users. With respect to the issue at hand (land values), fewer people/businesses would bid on the land away from the stations or bid less, and thus their value would go down. That’s why I say it would be a wash.

[Gitfiddler]

Originally Posted by Suzie

How would the rail system with a tunnel make that highrise residential proposal more attractive when it provides little or no improvement in travel? I agree that reliable transit service is important, but the other alternatives (surface LRT on Albert, optimized bus tunnel, etc.) would have reliability that would be almost as good. And in other key aspects (less wait, faster walking times, greater coverage, etc.), they would be better.

It just does. In cities all over the world.

Also, surface LRT on Albert might be the worst idea of the bunch, if only because it does nothing to free up an already unusable street during rush hour, but also because it has very limited potential for added capacity over time.

A bus tunnel can be converted to rail if the need arises. Surface rail has limited capacity to accommodate increased ridership. At a certain point you run the risk of still requiring a tunnel a few decades into the future when the cost of doing so will be many times what it is now.

Development patterns should seek to maximize social welfare. The minimization of servicing costs should be one factor that is taken into account, but certainly not the only one. Otherwise, all of us would be living in 50-storey apartment buildings like they do in Hong Kong. That would minimize servicing costs, yet it would not be socially optimal for us/

Development patterns should seek to maximize many things, social welfare among them, but not to the exclusion of all others. The primary motivators should be cost effectiveness and efficiency of the system. Comparing Ottawa to Hong Kong is patently ridiculous.

Additionally, something that's been argued by certain dinosaurs on council is that nobody wants to live in highrise condo towers so we shouldn't build them. . . . yet people are sure snapping them up quickly. It's not for everybody, but in terms of sustainable cities, smart high density development in the city core is essential.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I guess a good example of this is Seattle. They have LRT which runs at 7.5 minute headways with two cars, which they built into a bus tunnel. Why did they not just build a busway? They went to considerable expense to do so, and even closed their bus tunnel for 2 years to do so.

Seattle is a very sad story. If I remember correctly, the starter LRT system got approved via a referendum in 1996 as part of a broader transit package. Even though its promoters said that cost estimates were "conservative", the LRT project incurred horrendous cost overrruns (both in absolute and relative terms). Its ridership is not that high and the cost per car taken off the road is sky high.

Wasn't the bus tunnel built with tracks already in place, but to put the new LRT system in, they still had to shut down the tunnel for a long period?

[MalcolmTucker]

RE: TOD only being preferred due to increased inconvenience to further out options

As cities grow this happens. This happens along freeways where the freeways get clogged so people move back into the city proper, and this happens along mass transit. The only way to stop this is to stop growing.

Ottawa today can start changing its build form to adapt to the increased congestion today, or it can build a stop gap measure to encourage what is happening now to continue.

When you look at the TMP, what does it do? It is designed to allow the city to grow while making sure it doesn't have 16 hour rushhour on the Transit way and Queen's Way. Its goal (even if not stated) is to slow down expensive to service development in greenfield areas, that I am going to assume are mostly in beyond the green belt suburbs. The transfer, which if headways seen on the TMP are to be believed (I don't think they should be, but we will leave that aside) will impose at most a 1 minute actual cost, plus arbitrary penalty, and walking time, which will be made up for with the mediocre time savings in the core of the line, in the end being a wash. So while the amount of surplus per individual, both private and public is similar, more surplus can be generated as a whole.

A sub goal would be to alleviate growth pressures on mature neighborhoods like the Glebe by transferring development to TOD sites. Nothing most ward based city Councillors hate more than NIMBY reaction and developer pressure over infill.

A third goal is to reduce the number of buses, the operational cost of which is the biggest cost of the system. By disincentivizing growth in all areas that would require more bus service, the city ends up saving big time.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Seattle is a very sad story. If I remember correctly, the starter LRT system got approved via a referendum in 1996 as part of a broader transit package. Even though its promoters said that cost estimates were "conservative", the LRT project incurred horrendous cost overrruns (both in absolute and relative terms). Its ridership is not that high and the cost per car taken off the road is sky high.

Wasn't the bus tunnel built with tracks already in place, but to put the new LRT system in, they still had to shut down the tunnel for a long period?

Seattle didn't have rails to begin with, but the tunnel was originally for trolley buses, so it had overhead wires. They shut down the system to lower the level of fill in the single bore tunnels to give the amount of vertical clearance they needed for their vehicles (I guess they liked the high ceilings in the low floor cars, and of course didn't ask whether they could buy chopped top versions). Of course they didn't buy LRT cars compatible with the power system for the trolley buses (which is possible) so they took out the trolley wire when they installed the LRT system.

All in all a very stupid process, for a project that doesn't seem to fulfill a very big need, that could have been done cheaper and likely better if they staid with trolley buses.

But good ol rail bias was able to get an LRT built, even when a better monorail plan had already failed, and the bus tunnel seemed to have enough capacity for more BRT (must have if now it shares with the LRT).

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Gitfiddler

Also, surface LRT on Albert might be the worst idea of the bunch, if only because it does nothing to free up an already unusable street during rush hour, but also because it has very limited potential for added capacity over time.

A bus tunnel can be converted to rail if the need arises. Surface rail has limited capacity to accommodate increased ridership. At a certain point you run the risk of still requiring a tunnel a few decades into the future when the cost of doing so will be many times what it is now.

A surface LRT, done right, can meet our needs for a very long time. If we need a tunnel in the long-term (2040? 2050?), I see no reason why its cost would be significantly higher than today in real terms. And who knows, maybe they will come up with a tunnel that is much more convenient for users than the current scheme. On top of that, we would still have a surface route that we could continue to use.

Development patterns should seek to maximize many things, social welfare among them, but not to the exclusion of all others. The primary motivators should be cost effectiveness and efficiency of the system.

People seek to maximize their welfare given the amount of resources that they have. They are being efficient. For example, when they buy a house or a condo, they do not automatically buy the cheapest unit available. If that were true, we would all be living in small apartments. People make trade-offs. The same thing with food, clothes, cars, vacations, etc.

Comparing Ottawa to Hong Kong is patently ridiculous.

I used an extreme example (Hong Kong) to illustrate a point. A singular focus on cost minimization is not appropriate and would result in a development pattern that most in Ottawa would find totally unacceptable.

Additionally, something that's been argued by certain dinosaurs on council is that nobody wants to live in highrise condo towers so we shouldn't build them. . . . yet people are sure snapping them up quickly. It's not for everybody, but in terms of sustainable cities, smart high density development in the city core is essential.

I did not say that nobody wants to live in a condo. I would never say that. And if the demand is there developers will build them. What I do say is that many people do not want to. For them, condo or apartment living (or even a townhouse) is a pill that is too bitter to swallow. That's reality.

[waterloowarrior]

Is it possible to have the BRT vs LRT debate in the other thread or to create a new brt vs lrt thread...I thought the whole point of this thread was for more focused discussion of the approved plan, to avoid these types of endless debates (as per the first page)

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Rathgrith

I foresee a couple of head on collisions taking place at rush hour while the bus driver is yelling at a passenger for not giving correct change. The Transitway is the freeway for buses; best to leave the lanes uni-directional.

The same kind of lane shift happens on roads all the time, notably Albert and/or Slater. There is no lane sharing unless there is a disabled vehicle, all lanes are uni-directional.