Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Originally Posted by 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)

The approved plan is not going to be funded from the sounds of it, so now what? Back to the drawing board.

The "other thread":
The future of Ottawa's Transit
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...25#post4529025

[lrt's friend]

Since the whole idea of a LRT tunnel was floated, Premier Maguinty has expressed grave concerns about affordability. Of course, our mayor ignored those comments. Where do we go from here? The mayor still insists on the tunnel but what would make it affordable? Does the tunnel concept have to be completely restudied to find cheaper options? How much longer will this delay the project ........................ again? Do we end up with only a Bayview to Hurdman route or a bus tunnel or return to the surface or nothing at all?

I have said this all along that part of the problem is that the downtown transit agenda (and therefore the whole LRT plan) has been driven by the wishes of Downtown Coalition and this has driven up costs to the current point.

My ongoing comment since I joined this discusion board in late 2006 has been, how does this all improve transit for riders? I have continually been very skeptical that the plan will be beneficial except for resolving future congestion problems downtown. A good transit plan should do more than just that. Now, we face a situation where even the aspect that was supposed to solve that one downtown issue has to be substantially economized. We will see where this all goes but my ongoing pessimism is growing more.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My ongoing comment since I joined this discusion board in late 2006 has been, how does this all improve transit for riders? I have continually been very skeptical that the plan will be beneficial except for resolving future congestion problems downtown. A good transit plan should do more than just that. Now, we face a situation where even the aspect that was supposed to solve that one downtown issue has to be substantially economized. We will see where this all goes but my ongoing pessimism is growing more.

You can't increase ridership at this point without addressing downtown congestion. It is a real problem. You can't expect to collect more suburban passengers and stuff them into the same clogged pipe in the core. Past investment in the downtown Transitway has virtually been nil. Again I raise the point that the tunnel is les than four times what is being spent at Baseline station alone at the moment.

Another aspect that is rarely brought up is passenger dignity. I think we have hit the ceiling with people willing to put up with riding a bus. One of the councillors put it right by saying we would be able to go to the NAC by train. Somehow, people are just not willing to take the bus when they are dressed up, but will take a subway like they do in Montreal. It is high time we focused on quality over quantity to attract a larger segment of the population, people who will willingly, not grudgingly, take transit. Don't listen to engineers on this point, look to architects and designers.

Ottawans need to be more "threatening" to get the funding. We are being pushed around because we are easy. To think that both the provincial premier and the federal minister of transport come from the area, we would have it in the bag -- well, let's threaten to vote them out!

[Richard Eade]

Or, we could just do things in stages with the money that is available.

Since the Feds and Prov. seem to be comfortable with giving $400M each (according to numerous media reports), why don't we spend $1B on a (truely!) convertible bus tunnel, with the extra $200M used for suburban busway expansion. This could be paid off before the tunnel is even finished. Then in the following years, we gradually work on fixing some of the sections of the Transitway which are not readily convertable. That is, tight turns, platform lengths, a bus tunnel along Byron, etc.. In ten years, or when the economy is back up to speed, we spend $2B (divided by 3) on conversion to rail from Blair to Bayshore and Baseline.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Or, we could just do things in stages with the money that is available.Since the Feds and Prov. seem to be comfortable with giving $400M each (according to numerous media reports), why don't we spend $1B on a (truely!) convertible bus tunnel, with the extra $200M used for suburban busway expansion. This could be paid off before the tunnel is even finished. Then in the following years, we gradually work on fixing some of the sections of the Transitway which are not readily convertable. That is, tight turns, platform lengths, a bus tunnel along Byron, etc.. In ten years, or when the economy is back up to speed, we spend $2B (divided by 3) on conversion to rail from Blair to Bayshore and Baseline.

And how much money are you going to spend on new buses so they can run in an enclosed tunnel? Don't tell me you want to run the current diesel buses and just vent the exhaust out. We've gone a long way in banning smoking in public spaces in this city and province and to suggest that we wait in tunnels breathing air laced with toxins is just a mega-step backwards. Try suggesting that we bring back smoking in bars as long as the ventilation is adequate, and see how far you get.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

And how much money are you going to spend on new buses so they can run in an enclosed tunnel? Don't tell me you want to run the current diesel buses and just vent the exhaust out. We've gone a long way in banning smoking in public spaces in this city and province and to suggest that we wait in tunnels breathing air laced with toxins is just a mega-step backwards. Try suggesting that we bring back smoking in bars as long as the ventilation is adequate, and see how far you get.

Well, you could buy duel mode trolley buses, or perhaps hybrids that have a true electric only mode (which is what they do in Seattle for their tunnel)

[Richard Eade]

Maybe a little off target but I wonder how many of the LRT designers have seen the film "The Pentagon Wars"?

Here is an excellent example of feature creep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI...eature=related

Maybe the movie should be required viewing for City staff (and its contractors). That way they might be able to see what they are doing to our LRT.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

And how much money are you going to spend on new buses so they can run in an enclosed tunnel? Don't tell me you want to run the current diesel buses and just vent the exhaust out. We've gone a long way in banning smoking in public spaces in this city and province and to suggest that we wait in tunnels breathing air laced with toxins is just a mega-step backwards. Try suggesting that we bring back smoking in bars as long as the ventilation is adequate, and see how far you get.

Good point. I suggest that we only buy very low emission buses from now on. Yes they cost more, but it is the right thing to do. I really don't care if we don't get the advertised fuel savings, I think it is important enough to reduce our emissions.

The Hybrids we have on order number about 177: We replace about 40-45 buses a year and purchase another 50 or so for growth each year. Lets say it takes four years to complete the bus tunnel. In that time, our hybrid fleet will have grown to about 557 buses which would be enough to get us started. (Note, full rush-hour service takes 846 buses total.)

As pointed out above, Seattle runs modified hybrid buses through their tunnel which is about the same length as ours will be. I will leave it to you to do a search on Seattle's "Hush Mode".

[Kitchissippi]

OK, enough of the bus tunnel discussion in this thread, it is a stupid, stupid idea. Move on.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

OK, enough of the bus tunnel discussion in this thread, it is a stupid, stupid idea. Move on.

And if a stepped approach (including building the tunnel for buses first) is the only way to get to the final goal, is it still a "stupid, stupid idea"?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And if a stepped approach (including building the tunnel for buses first) is the only way to get to the final goal, is it still a "stupid, stupid idea"?

Because in no way would replacing all the buses so that they can run in a tunnel be cheaper than a handful of trains. And don't give me "reduced emissions" like the hybrid buses we are buying. They won't do. It's like saying you can smoke light cigarettes or smoke just half a cigarette in a public space.

[eemy]

With the staff we have in city hall, does anyone really think that a bus tunnel is going to be any more affordable? It seems outrageous to me that with all the concerns about affordability, they would introduce an idea like a glass barrier to the track, which seems like a rather expensive frill when almost every other system in the world does without. If we had a bus tunnel, I'm sure they would find a way to ramp up the costs for it as well until it is unacceptably expensive.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Or, we could just do things in stages with the money that is available.

Since the Feds and Prov. seem to be comfortable with giving $400M each (according to numerous media reports), why don't we spend $1B on a (truely!) convertible bus tunnel, with the extra $200M used for suburban busway expansion. This could be paid off before the tunnel is even finished. Then in the following years, we gradually work on fixing some of the sections of the Transitway which are not readily convertable. That is, tight turns, platform lengths, a bus tunnel along Byron, etc.. In ten years, or when the economy is back up to speed, we spend $2B (divided by 3) on conversion to rail from Blair to Bayshore and Baseline.

Maybe use that $200M could go to build an extra station in that tunnel. It really needs one.

[lrt's friend]

Another aspect that is rarely brought up is passenger dignity. I think we have hit the ceiling with people willing to put up with riding a bus. One of the councillors put it right by saying we would be able to go to the NAC by train. Somehow, people are just not willing to take the bus when they are dressed up, but will take a subway like they do in Montreal. It is high time we focused on quality over quantity to attract a larger segment of the population, people who will willingly, not grudgingly, take transit. Don't listen to engineers on this point, look to architects and designers.

We still have to respect budget limitations. Also, only a relatively small proportation of the population will be within walking distance of LRT even when it is fully built out. Perhaps, those living in that area should have to pay a property tax surcharge in order to receive this 'passenger dignity' and 'quality' of service so that they can ride the subway to the NAC. The rest of us will still have to ride the bus and according to the proposal, we will be walking a lot further in order to catch the bus.

[Franky]

See:
The future of Ottawa's Transit
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...48#post4530548

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We still have to respect budget limitations. Also, only a relatively small proportation of the population will be within walking distance of LRT even when it is fully built out. Perhaps, those living in that area should have to pay a property tax surcharge in order to receive this 'passenger dignity' and 'quality' of service so that they can ride the subway to the NAC. The rest of us will still have to ride the bus and according to the proposal, we will be walking a lot further in order to catch the bus.

Initially yes, but at full build-out the suburbs will get LRT as well.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Perhaps, those living in that area should have to pay a property tax surcharge in order to receive this 'passenger dignity' and 'quality' of service so that they can ride the subway to the NAC.

We already do because of higher property values. I paid almost $900 last year just for transit on my tax bill, that's before riding a single bus. How much was your portion?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

We already do because of higher property values. I paid almost $900 last year just for transit on my tax bill, that's before riding a single bus. How much was your portion?

How did you get that number? $172,700,000/400,000? households = $432, not counting business taxes.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Franky

How did you get that number? $172,700,000/400,000? households = $432, not counting business taxes.

Transit levy is around 0.18% of assessed property value in my area.

Here's another perspective: The condo owners in Hudson Park will probably pay upwards of $500 to $800 a year for transit (yeah, guys, check your bill). Will they use it? Probably not, they'll likely walk a lot. Yet that development that takes up 1/8 of a city block will probably collect more in transit levies than tens of blocks of suburban development in Riverside South. So what do these people get for their money? Streets clogged with diesel-spewing buses rarely of use to them. When suburbanites complain about having to walk an additional 100 metres to their 20-kilometre commute while paying proportionally less for transit...sheesh, cry me a river.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Transit levy is around 0.18% of assessed property value in my area.

Here's another perspective: The condo owners in Hudson Park will probably pay upwards of $500 to $800 a year for transit (yeah, guys, check your bill). Will they use it? Probably not, they'll likely walk a lot. Yet that development that takes up 1/8 of a city block will probably collect more in transit levies than tens of blocks of suburban development in Riverside South. So what do these people get for their money? Streets clogged with diesel-spewing buses rarely of use to them. When suburbanites complain about having to walk an additional 100 metres to their 20-kilometre commute while paying proportionally less for transit...sheesh, cry me a river.

Half million dollar home - fairly common for inside the greenbelt I guess. On top of that it doesn't cover capital costs which come out of income taxes.

That last point seems like a good one - fare zones might help. A 10 km trip (over and back) costs $4.60 or to look at it another way, $46/100 km or about 46 l/100 km! It's at least 4x what it costs to gas up a car (even SUV) for the same trip!