HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2821  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 5:15 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Was the LRT on Carling that was planned with the original core network going to be a supplemental Toronto Transit City style LRT (which for point of clarity we should likely give a different name, like tram or streetcar just to make the debate less confusing), or another option in the core network (180m stations, etc?)
Is there enough use of Routes 85 and 101 to warrant higher-order transportation (i.e. more than on-street BRT with priority signals and lanes which I think is currently warranted along the entire length, something like Route 109?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2822  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 11:43 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Was the LRT on Carling that was planned with the original core network going to be a supplemental Toronto Transit City style LRT (which for point of clarity we should likely give a different name, like tram or streetcar just to make the debate less confusing), or another option in the core network (180m stations, etc?)
I think the answer is yes. IIRC the city used a term like secondary LRT or something to designate the Carling and Montreal road corridors as more streetcar-like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2823  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 7:56 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
“The waterfront is pristine land and they won’t want trains running along it,” [Diane Deans] said. “Fish and ducks don’t take public transit and that’s the only thing there.”

I don't favour a parkway routing (well, except for a short stretch immediately west of Dominion) for plenty of other reasons (little walk-on traffic, difficult transfers, curvy route) but this above claim by Ms. Deans is absolute nonsense. That waterfront is anything but pristine. Most of the parkway is built on a rubble embankment, which, in several places, has been used to fill in bits of the river. Only in a few places (including the picnic spot near Woodroffe) is the shoreline remotely what might be considered "pristine".

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I don't think we can discard Carling too quickly since we are planning to build LRT on Carling anyways. You cannot simply compare Byron and Carling costs, because in time it becomes Byron + Carling versus Carling alone.
Carling will take a long time to build because of all the property that has to be acquired and all the utility relocations. And that's once all the arguments about grade separation have been concluded and an exact route determined.

Another thing about Carling is that it will likely remove two east-west arterial lanes. If Carling is done first, then that's just the kind of excuse the road wideners will use to push for Richmond Road to be twinned from Carling to Westboro (perhaps even before Carling gets LRT), whereas putting LRT in the Richmond corridor first can permanently cut off that option if it's done right. Then when LRT goes onto Carling later, there will be nowhere else to insert replacement, much less growth, arterial lanes. Putting LRT on Carling second will also likely reduce the arguments over grade separations since it won't be the primary line.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2824  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 9:15 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,254
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2825  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 5:11 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,642
Cyrville:

Quote:
Recommended Design

The recommended design for Cyrville Station incorporates the following major elements:
• Conversion of the existing lower level BRT platforms to 120 m LRT platforms, with allowance for future platform
extension (to the north) to accommodate 180 m platforms
• Removal of the existing platform canopies on the lower level and the construction of a new, fully enclosed canopy
spanning over a section of the LRT tracks through the station
• Rehabilitation and re-use of existing station facilities located on the upper level
• Retention of existing station access points from Cyrville Road and future development west of the station


Honestly, I don’t know why this station is being built in this phase. I would have no problem with it being ‘roughed in’, but I can’t see any need to spend millions of dollars to re-build this station. I agree that there is potential for development north of this station, but instead, I would suggest simply running a bus along Cyrville/Labelle to St. Laurent. Currently there aren’t any buses that run across the Cyrville overpass meaning that this station has no potential as a transfer station.

Alas, this station will be re-built so I’ll comment on the plan presented: There are limited access points shown for the station. If some-one wants to change platforms or arrives on the wrong side of the bridge, then they will be forced to cross mid-bridge. It is probably just the rendering, but there is currently a path from the parking lot (south-west) to the station. I hope this path remains.

Oddly, and again it might just be the rendering, there seems to be a notch in the west-bound platform. This might be due to the realization that few people will be using that end of the platform since the only accesses are near the other end of the platforms.

One further question: If the new east-end bridge over the Ottawa River does happen, and is accesses via the Aviation Parkway, then I would expect that the intersection of the 174, 417, and Aviation Parkway would need some re-configuring. Since the Transitway curves around the current interchange, would it make more sense to include a straightened Transitway/LRT route in the redesign of the interchange and free up more land for development to make the Cyrville Station more justifiable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2826  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 10:40 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
Cyrville:

One further question: If the new east-end bridge over the Ottawa River does happen, and is accesses via the Aviation Parkway, then I would expect that the intersection of the 174, 417, and Aviation Parkway would need some re-configuring. Since the Transitway curves around the current interchange, would it make more sense to include a straightened Transitway/LRT route in the redesign of the interchange and free up more land for development to make the Cyrville Station more justifiable?
You mean sort of like this?


I love this thing... it's on all of only two levels.

Cyrville Road as an overpass has to go though; it could go under the Queensway I suppose.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2827  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 3:56 AM
Deez's Avatar
Deez Deez is offline
you know my steez
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,397
Slightly off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

PDFs of some interesting new display boards for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT have just been posted at http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

Going over the details, I couldn't help but envy how smoothly this project has been rolling along. I think this illustrates a couple of interesting points:

1) Toronto bureaucrats are much more skilled at selling this project to the province. The province has already committed to funding this line even though work hasn't really progressed any further than the DOTT project. Furthermore, they seem to have been able to justify 4.6B$ (up from 2.2B$) for a line that would carry no more than 5500 pphpd in 2031. And with more than 10km of tunneling, 12 underground stations (including 2 subway interface stations), and numerous grade separated intermodal stations, you can bet the price is going to jump quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I would rather overdo lines such as this rather than underbuild, but the province's unwillingness to fund the DOTT is totally out to lunch when you look at the numbers for this project they're on board with.

2) The attitude of Toronto citizens is much more conducive to facilitating this type of project. Rather than the Ottawa approach to having these projects becoming highly politicized and ensuring that everybody's dog has their 2 cents about how the project should work, Torontonians are more apt to just accept the fact that more transit is good transit and let the project carry itself out. While this is not always a healthy attitude, (without Jane Jacobs, Chinatown would be bisected by an expressway...) it is unreasonable to expect that everybody's opinion can be taken into account and valued equally. Public consultation can only be taken so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2828  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 4:26 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,599
If Ottawa proposed a project like Eglinton: right sized underground stations (60m expandable to 90 m) built with cut and cover, walk up above ground stations and with a route designed to minimize cost not placate the business coalition and people who like the market I think it could be done pretty easily. It would also not cost more than 2 billion dollars as the current plan does.

The budget for Eglinton also only went up once the province was committed and Metrolinx decided to tunnel the middle section. Metrolinx wanted to go even further and grade separate the entire line and use skytrain technology but Toronto City Council stopped them. The peak projected people per direction per hour is not for the entire line, but at multiple points, since the project has multiple peak points, not one like Calgary's or Ottawa's does/would. The airport, 4 connecting LRT/Skytrain lines, 1 connecting BRT, a couple connecting heavy rail stations, 3 connecting subways are all examples of points where ridership will have peaks. People per direction per hour might be important in deciding what technology to use, but it isn't a very good measure of ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2829  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 4:50 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,254
^ Eglinton was announced as a tunneled line from the beginning, and before they had any funding.. it was not a Metrolinx decision to tunnel.
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=2935&page=2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2830  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 5:09 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez View Post
Slightly off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

PDFs of some interesting new display boards for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT have just been posted at http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

Going over the details, I couldn't help but envy how smoothly this project has been rolling along. I think this illustrates a couple of interesting points:

1) Toronto bureaucrats are much more skilled at selling this project to the province. The province has already committed to funding this line even though work hasn't really progressed any further than the DOTT project. Furthermore, they seem to have been able to justify 4.6B$ (up from 2.2B$) for a line that would carry no more than 5500 pphpd in 2031. And with more than 10km of tunneling, 12 underground stations (including 2 subway interface stations), and numerous grade separated intermodal stations, you can bet the price is going to jump quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I would rather overdo lines such as this rather than underbuild, but the province's unwillingness to fund the DOTT is totally out to lunch when you look at the numbers for this project they're on board with.

2) The attitude of Toronto citizens is much more conducive to facilitating this type of project. Rather than the Ottawa approach to having these projects becoming highly politicized and ensuring that everybody's dog has their 2 cents about how the project should work, Torontonians are more apt to just accept the fact that more transit is good transit and let the project carry itself out. While this is not always a healthy attitude, (without Jane Jacobs, Chinatown would be bisected by an expressway...) it is unreasonable to expect that everybody's opinion can be taken into account and valued equally. Public consultation can only be taken so far.
Another factor is that Toronto is the media and political centre of Ontario, and where the most votes are. You can guarantee if eastern Ontario broke off into its own province, that there would be a lot more going to Ottawa (even though the overall political picture in such a hypothetical province would be much more conservative).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2831  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 5:43 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,792
What can one say? When you have a big fight between Larry O'Brien, Dalton Maguinty, Bob Chiarelli and John Baird over LRT, how can this end happily?

There is an important difference between Eglinton Crosstown and what we are doing. The Eglinton Crosstown will actually deliver faster service and more ridership.

There has been considerable opposition in Toronto by those who wanted true subways. Toronto moved forward fast to push that opposition aside and to get funding when it was available. Ottawa had no rail plans ready to take advantage of the same funding at the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2832  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2009, 2:15 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I think council should approve the current rail plan, conditional on 2/3rds provincial funding. I don't care if it takes until the next recession. It just doesn't make sense that major transit projects in SWO are treated differently than major transit projects in Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2833  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2009, 6:27 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
I think council should approve the current rail plan, conditional on 2/3rds provincial funding. I don't care if it takes until the next recession. It just doesn't make sense that major transit projects in SWO are treated differently than major transit projects in Ottawa.
So, you are prepared to let Ottawa's transit system stagnate for a generation? Sad
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2834  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2009, 10:25 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
So, you are prepared to let Ottawa's transit system stagnate for a generation? Sad
Given that the province doesn't seem interested in paying even 1/3rd of the current plan, it's not like we're giving anything up by waiting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2835  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2009, 10:43 PM
bikegypsy's Avatar
bikegypsy bikegypsy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 985
No... That's not sad. It's called having an opinion. What's really sad is stating some general comment about what another member of this forum is believing and adding the word "sad" at the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2836  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2009, 1:41 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
Given that the province doesn't seem interested in paying even 1/3rd of the current plan, it's not like we're giving anything up by waiting.
You know, when you get negative signals from your funding partner, increasing the request to 2/3 is just rubbing it in their faces. How will this ever have a positive outcome? We need to find a way to make the plan more attractive to our funding partners.

Toronto has received funding because their working relationship with the province has been much better. Ottawa has cancelled a plan that the province approved and then developed a plan despite repeated warnings from the province. This is not a good recipe for getting 1/3 funding, let alone 2/3 funding.

What makes it worse is that this our plan is now being linked with a bus service cut plan. Doesn't this make it even less attractive for the province to be involved? Toronto's plan is a service improvement plan, something that provincial politicians are happy to be associated with.

Last edited by lrt's friend; Nov 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2837  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2009, 6:01 PM
Ciemny's Avatar
Ciemny Ciemny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 130
Were not people questioning the ridership projections of the previous N-S LRT line as well. But the province was happy with what the city presented?

Now with this new plan I dunno what the city's projections for ridership are, but I assume they cannot be higher then we have now and this might be another reason that the province is not happy with our plan. So much money for so little increase. I guess Im still bitter with the fact we canned the last plan when it went through so many hurdles with provincial/federal consent and now we are going full steam ahead with this incarnation that has absolutley no guarantee of funding and any increases are shrugged off by some councillors *cough* Cullen *cough*.

I think this is our last shot at LRT for a long time, it fails, council fails. YAY Ottawa!!!!
__________________
War - A Continuation of Politics by Other Means.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2838  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2009, 9:26 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,642
Blair:

Quote:
Recommended Design

The recommended design for Blair Station follows the approved “LRT on Lower Level” design alternative and incorporates the following major elements:
• Conversion of the existing lower level local bus platforms to 180 m long LRT platforms, in a centre platform configuration, to accommodate 4-car trains initially and 6-car trains in the future
• Construction of an expanded upper level bus platform in a centre-island configuration to accommodate BRT and local bus service
• Rehabilitation and re-use of the existing pedestrian overpass structure
• Retention of existing station access points
• A crossover and pocket track to the west of the LRT platforms


Although I expect a lot of thought has been put into the design of this station, I think a better station layout could be achieved. This will be a major transfer station with a twin-tracked LRT, two busy BRT Transitways, and local buses all converging here. It will be the western termination of those Transitways while local buses will continue to have access to City Park Drive to the west. A major shopping mall and a business park are connected to this station.

The big problems I have with the presented design are:
- All buses cross twice to have their doors facing the central-island. Buses going to the Lay-by cross the traffic thrice.
- All buses, Transitway and local, will be using the same platforms which will make the stops very crowded, potentially leading to bus jams.
- Virtually all pedestrians will have to cross the LRT/bus platform/island.

I will elaborate a bit on each of these points:

Since buses have their doors on the right side, the buses must cross to a ‘counter-flow’ direction to allow riders access to a central, island platform. After the buses have circled the island, they must then revert to their normal side of the road by crossing again. Thus every bus must cross a traffic lane at least twice. As I mentioned above, if a bus is to wait in the Lay-by area, then it needs to cross the inlet stream a second time to get to the Lay-by area. Worse still would be if the station were modified to permit the local buses to exit the station to the west. This adds a second inlet/outlet stream that needs to be crossed by every bus, at least once. It is not clear in the rendering as to whether buses will have a path to the west.

On my second point, there will be two bus platforms to handle all of the buses using the station. Currently there are two for the Transitway buses and two for local buses for a total of four. The new station will have half the current number, yet it appears that the platforms will be no longer than the current local bus platforms. This will mean that there will be more buses assigned to each stop, which will cause more frustration for the riders, and the likelihood that buses will back up to across other stops.

The third point is perhaps less obvious, but it will increase the crowded nature of the LRT platform. The vast majority of people arriving by bus from Orleans in the morning will want to continue their journey to down town. They will disembark their buses on the south platform and descend to the LRT platform where they will want to move to the north platform to get their train. In the evening, they will arrive by train at the south LRT platform and then move to the north bus platform.

In fact, most people will be continuing in the same direction as the transit vehicle they just got off of so side platforms for both the buses and the LRT would be more suitable. And, since there will continue to be escalators/stairs/elevators from the bridge to the bus platform, these could be extended one more level down to side LRT platforms.

This now brings up the track geometry. In the text, it states that there will be “a crossover and pocket track to the west of the LRT platforms”. If the central platform were built 12 metres wide, there would be room for two pocket tracks between the running tracks, but the text talks in the singular. However, my point is that these are to the west of the station which means that loaded trains will be running over at least two sets of switches, at slow speed. If the switching were done to the east of the station, then the trains travel straight into the station, unload their passengers, then continue onto an eastern tail track to switch sides and then pick up people at the other platform before heading straight out of the station. This removes the mechanics of the trip from the rider’s experience and provides faster, smoother service. It also simplifies the way-finding since there are clearly defined east-bound and west-bound platforms and the west-bound train will always be empty when it arrives at that platform. If the track is switched before the station, the passengers will be trying to exit the train into the crowd trying to board it.

Either side- or central-platform stations will work with the switching after the station. This should be used at both Tunneys Pasture and at Blair stations.

Unfortunately, the renderings presented do not extend beyond the immediate station area so there is no information about how the buses and Transitways will be routed to the station. It needs to be done in a manner that allows the LRT to be extended east in the future without cutting off bus access to the station. Personally, I would like to see more of the ‘big picture’ plan. The following idea allows for future Transitways or LRT routing and compresses the station area to encourage future development and integration of the station into the mall.



Since the ramps from the 174 currently terminate at signal controlled intersections with Blair, I have kept that system, but changed the configuration. These ramps are shown in yellow. The bus routes are in blue. The ones I recommend are in dark blue, and alternative options are in light blue. Using the dark blue route might require pushing the 174 over a bit, but it opens up a second route under Blair.

The Staff station plan could be used, but moved south, directly with the dark blue, or in mirror image (flipped) for the light blue. However, I’d like to see a simplified stacked, side-platform station arrangement.

Local buses could use the existing ramps south of the 174 which I have Xed out. This could also be an access to the Cumberland Transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2839  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2009, 9:38 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Blair is definitely a tricky station.

Personally, I would have gone with the staff plan in general, except that the LRT should be in a shallow trench (just deep enough to clear the Blair Road interchange ramps without changing the interchange geometry) as opposed to a tunnel (reducing costs, while also making it possible to extend east easily beneath the ramps). All other bridges should remain in place. Any extension onto a Cumberland Transitway would have to be to the east of the station.

Any storage tracks would have to be to the west of the station (unless the interchange was reconstructed immediately), but there is plenty of room to accomodate that.

The bus platform just needs to be lengthened on each side to accomodate all the Orleans-bound local buses. Some of the parking lots may need to be converted to layover areas.

I recommend, since it is a relatively short distance to Orleans from Blair, that all existing express routes be converted into local routes to Blair at all times of day, replacing the locals and the 95 - they already did that with the 20/120, 22/122 and 35/135. Only the 130 should remain as an intra-Orleans route, being a local loop route. That reduces duplication substantially (combining expresses and locals) and reduces the number of transfers needed as well from 2 to 1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2840  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2009, 8:37 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
You know, when you get negative signals from your funding partner, increasing the request to 2/3 is just rubbing it in their faces. How will this ever have a positive outcome? We need to find a way to make the plan more attractive to our funding partners.

Toronto has received funding because their working relationship with the province has been much better. Ottawa has cancelled a plan that the province approved and then developed a plan despite repeated warnings from the province. This is not a good recipe for getting 1/3 funding, let alone 2/3 funding.

What makes it worse is that this our plan is now being linked with a bus service cut plan. Doesn't this make it even less attractive for the province to be involved? Toronto's plan is a service improvement plan, something that provincial politicians are happy to be associated with.
The province wasn't even funding the first plan at 1/3rd. That's the plan that you seemed to think they were completely on board with. They were paying $200 million on a project that was estimated at $880 million or so.

I want light rail. I want it to serve the area inside the Greenbelt. I want it expanded outside the Greenbelt as quickly as possible. I just don't want our city to be bankrupted by it because the other levels of government think they can treat us like shit.

If the province doesn't like the current plan, then ask them what kind of plan they would support that would qualify for 2/3rds funding.

If their objection is that there is a service or ridership reduction in the short term then patiently explain to them what happens in 30 years if we keep using express buses. No TOD. Insane congestion downtown. Ever increasing costs. And more exposure to rising fuel prices for transit than any other municipality in Canada.

The BRT is a bit of a deadend. In the short term it got us closer to the destination, but now we need to back out of it and get back on the well-trod path of LRT. When you're backing up like that, you're going to be moving further away from your destination before you get closer again. It's just the way it is. If the city hasn't communicated this effectively then they've done a poor job. To be honest, if Watson and McGuinty don't already know this then they're not paying attention. Haven't they lived in this city their whole lives?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.