Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I keep hearing that the new train will offer faster service between Tunneys Pasture and Blair so I calculated the approximate times, using distances from Google Earth and an acceleration rate of 1.34 m/s/s. I generally limited the top speed of the trains to 80 K/h, which is what Staff seem to be aiming for, however, there were some sections which limit the top speed by geometry. For these segments I have indicated the maximum speed I used.

Tunneys to Bayview: 1317m, 75.85s
Bayview to LeBreton: 699m, 48.04s
LeBreton to Downtown-West: 889m, 56.59s
Downtown-West to Downtown-East: 494m, 38.81s
Downtown-East to Rideau: 650m, 45.84s
Rideau to Campus: 1273m, 102.01s @ 50 K/h
Campus to Lees: 1036m, 63.21s
Lees to Hurdman: 728m, 62.76s @ 50 K/h
Hurdman to Train: 1271m, 158.74s @ 30 K/h
Train to St. Laurent: 1233m, 72.07s
St. Laurent to Cyrville: 918m, 57.90s
Cyrville to Blair: 1762m, 95.88s
--------------------------------------------
Totals: 12,270m, 877.70s

Now if I add an average dwell time of 20 seconds for each of the 12 stations, the total time from Tunneys Pasture to Blair (including the stops at the end points) is 1117.70 seconds, or about 19 minutes.

The train will be faster! Saving three minutes over the #95's scheduled 22 minute trip.

For a person traveling from Orleans to Downtown, the train will remove the direct to downtown express service so there will be an additional time (say, 3 minutes) for the transfer at Blair, then there will be another two minutes to get out of the tunnel once downtown. These folks will not be saving any time and may well take longer for their trip, which will now include a transfer.

Good analysis. But don't forget that a train offers (more) predictability than the current bus-based system does. Barring exceptional circumstances, you can pretty much always count on that 19 minute-trip with the train. Now, what percentage of the time does the 95 make the same trip in the officially posted 22-minute time frame these days?

[Treplow]

Forgive my ignorance, but its been mentioned that Ottawa's proposed LRT system will likely use Automatic Train Control - does this mean that the trains themselves will be automated (i.e. like the SkyTrain/Canada Line here in Vancouver), or is this something to do with the signaling?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Treplow

Forgive my ignorance, but its been mentioned that Ottawa's proposed LRT system will likely use Automatic Train Control - does this mean that the trains themselves will be automated (i.e. like the SkyTrain/Canada Line here in Vancouver), or is this something to do with the signaling?

Sort of a hybrid as far as can tell. ATC will be in the tunnel since it is required to put in platform edge doors. Outside will likely be moving block signalling, which is not that far from ATC. The builders want to preserve the ability to run with drivers in the next phases of the system, for road crossings and such, so will likely keep drivers even if not really needed for this phase.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I keep hearing that the new train will offer faster service between Tunneys Pasture and Blair so I calculated the approximate times, using distances from Google Earth and an acceleration rate of 1.34 m/s/s. I generally limited the top speed of the trains to 80 K/h, which is what Staff seem to be aiming for, however, there were some sections which limit the top speed by geometry. For these segments I have indicated the maximum speed I used.

Tunneys to Bayview: 1317m, 75.85s
Bayview to LeBreton: 699m, 48.04s
LeBreton to Downtown-West: 889m, 56.59s
Downtown-West to Downtown-East: 494m, 38.81s
Downtown-East to Rideau: 650m, 45.84s
Rideau to Campus: 1273m, 102.01s @ 50 K/h
Campus to Lees: 1036m, 63.21s
Lees to Hurdman: 728m, 62.76s @ 50 K/h
Hurdman to Train: 1271m, 158.74s @ 30 K/h
Train to St. Laurent: 1233m, 72.07s
St. Laurent to Cyrville: 918m, 57.90s
Cyrville to Blair: 1762m, 95.88s
--------------------------------------------
Totals: 12,270m, 877.70s

Now if I add an average dwell time of 20 seconds for each of the 12 stations, the total time from Tunneys Pasture to Blair (including the stops at the end points) is 1117.70 seconds, or about 19 minutes.

The train will be faster! Saving three minutes over the #95's scheduled 22 minute trip.

For a person traveling from Orleans to Downtown, the train will remove the direct to downtown express service so there will be an additional time (say, 3 minutes) for the transfer at Blair, then there will be another two minutes to get out of the tunnel once downtown. These folks will not be saving any time and may well take longer for their trip, which will now include a transfer.

I have been saying exactly this since this plan emerged. It only makes sense. Any gain in the tunnel will be lost because of the transfer penalty and of course we have since added a 10 storey escalator ride (or is it more now) to make it worse. What infuriates me is the b.s. coming from city hall on this. First it was the mayor telling us there would be a saving of 15 minutes on a two way trip. Since we added the enormous escalator ride, it has become 15 to 20 minutes per one way trip. Why are we being treated like fools?

How do we get real savings? By building LRT on new corridors where we would be replacing buses running in mixed traffic. Not everybody has to be transported by train to downtown, at least, not in the short-term.

On the capacity issue, I have been equally arguing that we should be preserving the Albert/Slater corridor as a major transit route even after building the tunnel. Doing this, genuinely offers capacity for the next 50 years. We have been listening too much to those insisting that we remove the bulk of the buses downtown immediately on opening the tunnel. We continue to ignore the most successful LRT system in North America. Calgary will maintain their surface route even when they build a downtown tunnel. This will allow more routes with high frequency to run through downtown. They have also replaced express buses as each LRT branch was built, not forcing everybody to transfer starting on day one.

We continue to make mistake after mistake. Unfortunately, we may find out too late if there is little ridership growth from our enormous investment. But alas, nobody listens to me. We are too enamoured with getting rid of most downtown buses as soon as possible and converting the Transitways (as it was originally intended to be) to see the obvious lack of benefits to most transit riders. In the end, they will tell us all whether it was money well spent. Are we doing our homework to predict how existing and potential transit riders will respond to what we are doing?

[waterloowarrior]

Light-rail funding coming soon: Baird
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Light+rail+funding+coming+soon+Baird/2413778/story.html

BY MOHAMMED ADAM, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 6, 2010 11:16 PM


OTTAWA-Federal funding for Ottawa’s $2.1-billion light-rail project moved closer to reality Wednesday when Transport Minister John Baird promised “to get to that in short order.”

The Ontario government recently announced it would contribute $600 million for the project and the city has been waiting for the federal government to follow with a similar announcement. Baird said the amount of money involved requires cabinet approval, but intimated the wait won’t be long.

“All of us want to ensure Ottawa gets its fair share and we are committed to that, and will be speaking to that in short order,” he said.

A $600-million contribution from the federal government and a similar amount from the city will bring the funding to $1.8 billion, but that would still be $300 million short. The city however, has said it will find a way to make up the difference.

But even as federal funding appears imminent, the problem of the Ottawa River Parkway continues to haunt the project. The city needs access to the parkway to connect the rail line to the west, but the NCC, which owns the road, reiterated Wednesday that use of the parkway is not guaranteed.

Chief executive Marie Lemay said the city has to study all other corridors and produce a convincing report showing the parkway is the best route. Only then will the NCC take up the matter.

“You can’t assume you can use the land because it is federal land. We take care of this land on behalf of all Canadians and we have to be convinced this is the best alternative for Canadians as a whole,” Lemay said. “The NCC could say that the parkway cannot be used for the LRT. We have to see what the result of the study is.”

Baird said he’ll wait to see what happens at the end of the discussion between the city and the NCC.

“I’ll let that go forward and hear what they have to say rather than presupposing,” he said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Light-rail funding coming soon: Baird
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Light+rail+funding+coming+soon+Baird/2413778/story.html

BY MOHAMMED ADAM, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 6, 2010 11:16 PM

OTTAWA-Federal funding for Ottawa’s $2.1-billion light-rail project moved closer to reality Wednesday when Transport Minister John Baird promised “to get to that in short order.”

[...]

A $600-million contribution from the federal government and a similar amount from the city will bring the funding to $1.8 billion, but that would still be $300 million short. The city however, has said it will find a way to make up the difference.

More proof that use of logic is a lost skill. If the project costs $2.1B and we, the City, were willing to contribute a third of that - i.e. $700M - then regardless of whatever amount anyone else decides to contribute we're still in for that amount, i.e. $700M. Just because Queen's Park decides they're only going to contribute $600M doesn't mean that we're going to drop our own contribution by $100M in response.

As for the Feds, they're still technically in for $400M until they say otherwise. That means, as things stand right now, the amount committed is $1.7B ($700M (Ott) + $600M (Prov) + $400M (Feds)), leaving a shortfall of $400M. What the eventual shortfall is depends on the apparently forthcoming announcement from the Feds.

But even as federal funding appears imminent, the problem of the Ottawa River Parkway continues to haunt the project. The city needs access to the parkway to connect the rail line to the west, but the NCC, which owns the road, reiterated Wednesday that use of the parkway is not guaranteed.

Chief executive Marie Lemay said the city has to study all other corridors and produce a convincing report showing the parkway is the best route. Only then will the NCC take up the matter.

“You can’t assume you can use the land because it is federal land. We take care of this land on behalf of all Canadians and we have to be convinced this is the best alternative for Canadians as a whole,” Lemay said. “The NCC could say that the parkway cannot be used for the LRT. We have to see what the result of the study is.”

Baird said he’ll wait to see what happens at the end of the discussion between the city and the NCC.

“I’ll let that go forward and hear what they have to say rather than presupposing,” he said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Umm, isn't the western route additional to the $2.1B? That being the case, then how exactly is the Parkway "haunting" the project? I thought that the entire point of terminating at Tunney's Pasture was to avoid having to think too hard about what happens west of Dominion.

[lrt's friend]

It is scary that we have a funding shortfall based on estimated costs. The last time around, it was when the project went to tender that the price went way up. What will happen this time? It is also unlikely that we will get any sort of fixed price contract this time. All of these cost risks are going to fall on the property taxpayer. Now, it would help if the feds were to offer $700M, which would return pressure onto the provincial government to match. What is the liklihood of that?

[harls]

Originally Posted by The Citizen

“You can’t assume you can use the land because it is federal land. We take care of this land on behalf of all Canadians and we have to be convinced this is the best alternative for Canadians as a whole,” Lemay said. “The NCC could say that the parkway cannot be used for the LRT. We have to see what the result of the study is.”

I just don't get this. Buses have been using this stretch of the parkway for HOW long now?

Whoops.. I guess the bus thing is temporary, though (again - how many years has it been, exactly?)

I guess we'll have to wait for the NCC to consult with Joe Blow in rural Saskatchewan first to see if light rail is a good idea.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is also unlikely that we will get any sort of fixed price contract this time. All of these cost risks are going to fall on the property taxpayer.

There isn't any reason why the city wouldn't get a fixed cost contract if that is what is asked for in the RFP. Of course, they might want a bigger cancellation penalty built into the contract, but that would happen with all the small contracts individually if the city acted as prime contractor.

[lrt's friend]

A very interesting 12 minute interview with Maria McRae about the transit project. The most unexpected comment is that the North-South extension to South Keys is still included as part of the very first phase. This surprised me as I had thought this was dropped long ago.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=2137868

[Dado]

I don't think Maria McRae knows what she's talking about, nor, for that matter, does it seem that Ken Gray does either. The N-S part is clearly not part of the initial project. They wouldn't be making provisions for a new O-Train platform at Bayview if N-S LRT was part of the initial project.

Where this might become an issue is in the future after the initial project. If the trenchers and tunnellers get their way, the western extension to Baseline will end up costing a minor fortune and that could well be the end of any N-S LRT notions for a good long time (particularly since N-S LRT is itself already an over-engineered project).

[Richard Eade]

From what I recall, the amended Scenario 3 that was approved by City Council goes like this:

PHASE 1:

Increment 1:

DOTT
LRT Maintenance Yard
LRT (Blair to Tunneys Pasture)
BRT (Bayshore to Moodie)
BRT (Baseline to Norris)
BRT (Fallowfield to BTC)
BRT (Blair to east side of Blackburn Bypass – Cumberland Transitway part 1)

Increment 2:

LRT (Tunneys Pasture to Baseline)
LRT (Bayview to South Keys – replacing the O-Train)

Increment 3:

LRT (South Keys to RSTC)
BRT (Eagleson to ScotiaBank Place)
BRT (east of Blackburn Bypass to Cumberland – Cumberland Transitway part 2)

PHASE 2:

LRT (spur to Airport)
LRT (Carling Streetcar)
BRT (Eagleson to Kanata North)
BRT (ScotiaBank Place to Stittsville)
BRT (BTC to RSTC)
BRT (BTC to Barrhaven South)
BRT (Orleans TC to Trim)
BRT (Blair/Innes to Hurdman – formerly along Browning Corridor, now along Industrial/Terminal)
BRT (Norris to Hunt Club)
BRT (Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest)
BRT (along Baseline/Heron/Walkley/Russel/St. Laurent)

Thus, Maria McRae is correct in saying that the N/S line is in the first PHASE of the plan. This is also the rational that Staff took when they submitted a $1.8B option in the funding request to the upper levels of government. This option was for only rail, including the Blair to Tunneys Pasture route and the conversion of the O-Train. Since Maria still pines for the old N/S Plan, she is keen to have that option selected.

However, BOTH of the funding request options were under-costed since both included the Blair to Tunneys Pasture line. With the revised cost of that project at $2.1B alone, it will not be possible to build the other components as well for $300-400M less. Since the west-east line is the priority, and it includes a train tunnel, then it is what will be funded. There will be some paring back of some things, but expect to see the Blair to Tunneys Pasture route get approved at Council on Jan. 13; and only that part of PHASE 1.

As for the costs and the City’s ability to afford it, I don’t think the Councillors did a very thorough “Grilling” of the finance people. If I recall, the Treasurer was very cautious in the estimates and assumed no increase in the Gas Tax revenues that we were to receive. If we are not going to receive appreciably more income that we currently do, but we are going to spend $700M over the next 10 years, or so, then why do we not have a surplus of $70M per year now? Why are we scrambling to pay for the upkeep of our existing infrastructure now with a 2% per year sur-tax?

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by harls

I just don't get this. Buses have been using this stretch of the parkway for HOW long now?

Whoops.. I guess the bus thing is temporary, though (again - how many years has it been, exactly?)

I guess we'll have to wait for the NCC to consult with Joe Blow in rural Saskatchewan first to see if light rail is a good idea.

I certainly hope they don't put transit along the Parkway. Not that I like what it's currently used for, but transit would be worse. I'd like to see LRT go along a route that has some potential for TOD or redevelopment. We've seen no indication that the NCC would be interested in any kind of redevelopment. They should be renamed the Sterile Lands Commission.

I'd love to see some useful facilities (sailing clubs, restaurants, artistic centres, etc.) along some stretches of the riverfront. Imagine a lively riverwalk with integrated recreational cycle path, and perhaps a separate bikeway, and a street with 50 kph limits that actually interacts with the surroundings.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I certainly hope they don't put transit along the Parkway. Not that I like what it's currently used for, but transit would be worse. I'd like to see LRT go along a route that has some potential for TOD or redevelopment. We've seen no indication that the NCC would be interested in any kind of redevelopment. They should be renamed the Sterile Lands Commission.

I'd love to see some useful facilities (sailing clubs, restaurants, artistic centres, etc.) along some stretches of the riverfront. Imagine a lively riverwalk with integrated recreational cycle path, and perhaps a separate bikeway, and a street with 50 kph limits that actually interacts with the surroundings.

I agree concerning the location of LRT. I will go a step further and say that having both a busy road and a busy railway will even further separate the riverfront from the community. The only reason we want to build there is because it is cheap.

I think that it will be very difficult to make the riverfront a lively place though. Where this is successful, you have dense development immediately adjacent. You need lots of pedestrian traffic, otherwise where are all the cars going to park? The only place where we could even consider doing this is on Lebreton Flats but look at how slow even the existing proposed development is progressing. Even then, will we ever really create riverfront development of the type you are are suggesting? With all the busy roads already there, we can't even find a tenant for the former Mill restaurant building. When you consider it, the riverfront is really isolated even on Lebreton Flats. It is a wonder that The Mill succeeded as long as it did. Of course, sailing clubs are out of the question given the Deschenes and Remick Rapids and the Chaudiere Falls.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

From what I recall, the amended Scenario 3 that was approved by City Council goes like this:

PHASE 1:

Increment 1:

DOTT
LRT Maintenance Yard
LRT (Blair to Tunneys Pasture)
BRT (Bayshore to Moodie)
BRT (Baseline to Norris)
BRT (Fallowfield to BTC)
BRT (Blair to east side of Blackburn Bypass – Cumberland Transitway part 1)

Increment 2:

LRT (Tunneys Pasture to Baseline)
LRT (Bayview to South Keys – replacing the O-Train)

Increment 3:

LRT (South Keys to RSTC)
BRT (Eagleson to ScotiaBank Place)
BRT (east of Blackburn Bypass to Cumberland – Cumberland Transitway part 2)

PHASE 2:

LRT (spur to Airport)
LRT (Carling Streetcar)
BRT (Eagleson to Kanata North)
BRT (ScotiaBank Place to Stittsville)
BRT (BTC to RSTC)
BRT (BTC to Barrhaven South)
BRT (Orleans TC to Trim)
BRT (Blair/Innes to Hurdman – formerly along Browning Corridor, now along Industrial/Terminal)
BRT (Norris to Hunt Club)
BRT (Lincoln Fields to Pinecrest)
BRT (along Baseline/Heron/Walkley/Russel/St. Laurent)

Thus, Maria McRae is correct in saying that the N/S line is in the first PHASE of the plan. This is also the rational that Staff took when they submitted a $1.8B option in the funding request to the upper levels of government. This option was for only rail, including the Blair to Tunneys Pasture route and the conversion of the O-Train. Since Maria still pines for the old N/S Plan, she is keen to have that option selected.

However, BOTH of the funding request options were under-costed since both included the Blair to Tunneys Pasture line. With the revised cost of that project at $2.1B alone, it will not be possible to build the other components as well for $300-400M less. Since the west-east line is the priority, and it includes a train tunnel, then it is what will be funded. There will be some paring back of some things, but expect to see the Blair to Tunneys Pasture route get approved at Council on Jan. 13; and only that part of PHASE 1.

As for the costs and the City’s ability to afford it, I don’t think the Councillors did a very thorough “Grilling” of the finance people. If I recall, the Treasurer was very cautious in the estimates and assumed no increase in the Gas Tax revenues that we were to receive. If we are not going to receive appreciably more income that we currently do, but we are going to spend $700M over the next 10 years, or so, then why do we not have a surplus of $70M per year now? Why are we scrambling to pay for the upkeep of our existing infrastructure now with a 2% per year sur-tax?

IMO, LRT extensions to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans should go above some of those Phase 2 proposals.

[Kitchissippi]

It's ridiculous that the Lincoln Fields-Pinecrest link is way down the list in phase 2. This should have been given priority over any other BRT extensions.

[Ottawan]

What is strangest in my mind is that the Airport spur is in Phase II. That should be Phase I Increment II so that we have something more to show for the initial N-S line work than twinning the current O-Train and changing its technology. One advantage of Ottawa as a city and a benefit of the Greenbelt is having a successful international airport so close to downtown. Better connecting it to the CBD should be a higher priority.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's ridiculous that the Lincoln Fields-Pinecrest link is way down the list in phase 2. This should have been given priority over any other BRT extensions.

I agree, we should be building out without skipping segments.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ the airport link is expensive for any use it would garner, which would be minimal. Better to spend the money on any other part of the system to build one or two more incremental stations, or start to get across the greenbelt and build a big Park and Ride.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ the airport link is expensive for any use it would garner, which would be minimal. Better to spend the money on any other part of the system to build one or two more incremental stations, or start to get across the greenbelt and build a big Park and Ride.

yep, airports aren't big transit draws except in the biggest cities. Build for our own residents first. We need to extend rapid transit across the Greenbelt in the southeast before gridlock becomes too bad and taxpayers start demanding even more road expansion.