Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[jk1982]

Isnt the DOTT supposed to be near 300 feet underground? I would imagine that there would be no damage to the Canal nor interference, I thought they made it that deep exactly for that reason.

AS for the NAC, tear it down and have it go to Lansdowne, it would be more beneficial there, contrary to the captain of stalling( I choose a nicer word ) , Mr. Alex Cullen would say...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jk1982

Isnt the DOTT supposed to be near 300 feet underground? I would imagine that there would be no damage to the Canal nor interference, I thought they made it that deep exactly for that reason.

AS for the NAC, tear it down and have it go to Lansdowne, it would be more beneficial there, contrary to the captain of stalling( I choose a nicer word ) , Mr. Alex Cullen would say...

Hey, what's another few hundred million!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Luker

Well, I must say if it is as effective, cheap, and easy to implement as this article states, then im all for looking into these alternative options... This article and its statements on lrt and subways as 'blingtransit' really made me think about the truth of it...

Are streetcars more effective then are articulated busses? I guess what i'm asking is could they replace them on albert and slater.. and avoid tunnel construction? As much as I like the big city feel of the tunnel and lrt, 100s of millions < 2.1B :/

Such articles always forget two interesting aspects of transportation planning. The need of speedy long-haul transportation and the need of cheap transportation. Urban planners never look at these aspects. They want to have great looking/living neighborhoods, usually disconnected in planning from the others. This is especially true in Ottawa.

Streetcars ARE glorified buses. I had explicitely described the costs of a light metro versus streetcars, and the light metro, even at twice the price, would have been cheaper after 15 years.

Politicians don't seem to grasp that concept. Translink in Vancouver chose SkyTrain technology instead of LRT for these two reasons. SkyTrain is faster than LRT, and it costs nearly half of the operating costs. Translink is currently MAKING MONEY on the SkyTrain. Operating costs grow at the rate of inflation, forever, not infrastructure costs.

What is the difference between Vancouver and Ottawa? Translink actually plans and builds the highways and transit infrastructure, and pays for them, so they basically need to be... efficient!

For Toronto and Ottawa, the federal and provincial governements are paying 2/3 (if not less!) of the tab. They have absolutely no motivation whatsoever to build a faster nor cheaper to operate system. They want to build rapid transit cheap. (hence the Transitway in its day)

This is again because transit planner follow the strict scope of a project. For Ottawa, it was find the optimal tunnel route for attracting most current users. The scope didn't include build a cheap tunnel while maximizing usage. For the vehicle choice, again, it was basically build a system that doesn't cost much, so LRT it was.

A streetcar is for local service ONLY, if buses are struggling to meet the local demand. The term here is LOCAL demand. The new trend is to actually put in place 160km/h regional subways, as seen in London with Crossrail and Paris with their RER connections. These connections are actually faster than any car on a highway. In the end, that is what connects the most people, at the most efficient cost, and better than a car! It doesn't remove the need for streetcars or metros, it's just another mean of transportation that is necessary in a city.

All technologies serve different purposes, and the biggest mistake is to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I think we'll still need a tunnel. That's unavoidable. But it might be postponable (new word?).

It would be nice to have an entire plan, with lots of pieces, and a phased approach that lets the city build the pieces as demand and congestion require.

A tunnel, even at $1G, is made to save $100M annually in operating costs. If you ask any school kid, which one is cheaper on the long term, they will say the tunnel. Yet, people can't grasp the concept. Postponing the tunnel means to increase operating costs AND infrastructure costs, so it's always a lose-lose situation.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When I mentioned that one of the major obstacles is the Rideau Canal, I was referring to it and the sewers underneath it. By using the MacKenzie King bridge, and shallow tunnels on both sides, we limit overall length of the tunnel and therefore the cost. Of course, the tunnel would follow existing streets instead of the proposed cross-country route requiring us to go under building foundations. This facilitates the reuse of existing infrastructure, namely the bridge, which is already mainly used for transit. Why return this wide bridge back to general traffic?

On the NAC, many Ottawans reacted with horror when it first opened because the bleak brown windowless walls. Some referred to it as the penetentiary.

I agree with your proposition. This would re-use most current infrastructure, and there is enough length to support a shallow-tunnel to bridge approach.

People complained in the first LRT project that they still want traffic on the bridge. Again, it's just a matter to say no.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Two points

A lot of people seem to make the assumption that shallower is cheaper. Is there any evidence of this? Deep tunnels seem to be the overwelming choice of almost every transit system built or planned in an urban area in the last 30 years (Washington, the recent Toronto lines, the gold line in south africa, Crossrail, the new rail tunnel under the Hudson, numerous lines in Asia, etc.). A shallow tunnels requires not only several years of hugely disruptive road closures but often relocation of all kinds of underground infrastructure that has been put under city streets over the decades.

As it was already posted, most cities use tunnel boring machines because of existing underground infrastructure.

In Canada, for Sheppard, it was done this way because people didn't want to have a gutted street for months (as they did in Vancouver later, at an extremely cheaper cost). Sometimes, it's just to say no to people, that it is for a greater good.

[jk1982]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Hey, what's another few hundred million!

I admit, I am not too sure on the depth of the tunnel, but i thought that the tunnel was made deep enough to not interfere with the existing infrastructure.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

A tunnel, even at $1G, is made to save $100M annually in operating costs. If you ask any school kid, which one is cheaper on the long term, they will say the tunnel. Yet, people can't grasp the concept. Postponing the tunnel means to increase operating costs AND infrastructure costs, so it's always a lose-lose situation.

If we were starting from scratch with no BRT transitway then I'd agree with you. But I have no desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to widen streets, buy more buses, hire more drivers and build new infrastructure to handle putting the transitway buses through neighbourhoods while the BRT is shut down for LRT conversion.

If we can spend that money on short-train surface LRT in such a way that we gain a permanent asset instead of throwing it away then that's a good thing.

In a perfect world we'd be building the tunnel at the same time. Maybe we can afford it if we cut some corners. Get rid of Hurdman station. Excavate 180m stations but only build 120m ones. Perhaps only install half the facilities (escalators, washrooms, etc.) called for in the final design. If we can get the tunnel up and running for less then we should do it. Postpone any purchase required for achieving full capacity.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

If we were starting from scratch with no BRT transitway then I'd agree with you. But I have no desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to widen streets, buy more buses, hire more drivers and build new infrastructure to handle putting the transitway buses through neighbourhoods while the BRT is shut down for LRT conversion.

If we can spend that money on short-train surface LRT in such a way that we gain a permanent asset instead of throwing it away then that's a good thing.

In a perfect world we'd be building the tunnel at the same time. Maybe we can afford it if we cut some corners. Get rid of Hurdman station. Excavate 180m stations but only build 120m ones. Perhaps only install half the facilities (escalators, washrooms, etc.) called for in the final design. If we can get the tunnel up and running for less then we should do it. Postpone any purchase required for achieving full capacity.

I also hate the idea of rebuilding the Transitways and spending a ton of money to do so and then spend a ton of more money dealing with a 3 to 5 year disruption and 200,000 frustrated transit riders every day having to put up with it all. I have always thought that we should be building new transit infrastructure, which expands our transit system and attract new transit riders with our enormous investment. I guess I am just plain stupid not seeing the logic of what we are doing.

You know, I find it laughable that certain groups were raising cain about 10,000 riders being disrupted because of a 3 year shut down of the O-Train. Now, we are facing at least as long a disruption affecting 200,000 riders and those same groups are no where to be found. Doesn't that tell you something. If it affects a bus, who cares. If it affects a train, we scream. People really don't matter. Just wait until the average transit rider sees the writing on the wall about the impending disruptions. There will be an uproar and it will be too late to change anything. Of course, we have made sure that Transitway access into downtown from every part of the city will be disrupted all at the same time. Sounds like a great plan! Sounds like chaos.

[Franky]

BRT = less capital cost, less disruptions, no transfer stations but more pollution. It's certainly looking like this is the direction the city is heading since they ordered a whole lot of articulated buses and have a $200 million shortfall to fund the light rail plan.

I would like to see electric transport that isn't expensive light rail.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

BRT = less capital cost, less disruptions, no transfer stations but more pollution. It's certainly looking like this is the direction the city is heading since they ordered a whole lot of articulated buses and have a $200 million shortfall to fund the light rail plan.

I would like to see electric transport that isn't expensive light rail.

All those new articulated buses will be put into service on local routes once LRT opens. That will allow the city to carry more passengers with less buses. In other words, service frequency will be reduced, as has been occurring for years. So, that 20 minute wait for an express bus becomes a 30 minute wait for the local bus. Maybe not immediately, but quietly service reductions will be implemented as a result of passenger count surveys. They happen every year as part of the budget process. A run is cut here and there. Maybe one this year, another next year. Then the 20 minute frequency has become 30 minute frequency.

I know I am very cynical, but why would it not happen with the past track record of the city and OC Transpo?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You know, I find it laughable that certain groups were raising cain about 10,000 riders being disrupted because of a 3 year shut down of the O-Train. Now, we are facing at least as long a disruption affecting 200,000 riders and those same groups are no where to be found. Doesn't that tell you something. If it affects a bus, who cares. If it affects a train, we scream. People really don't matter.

Have you checked out their website recently?

http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/

Seems there's plenty amongst the most recent posts about stuff that affects bus riders and only one about train riders (the $700 hydro pole at Bayview that actually affects nearby residents more than train passengers). You're just not hearing from them in the media.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

All those new articulated buses will be put into service on local routes once LRT opens. That will allow the city to carry more passengers with less buses. In other words, service frequency will be reduced, as has been occurring for years. So, that 20 minute wait for an express bus becomes a 30 minute wait for the local bus. Maybe not immediately, but quietly service reductions will be implemented as a result of passenger count surveys. They happen every year as part of the budget process. A run is cut here and there. Maybe one this year, another next year. Then the 20 minute frequency has become 30 minute frequency.

I think you're ignoring the fact that right now more and more express routes are being run with articulated buses without much of a change in frequency (route consolidations and conversions are eliminating some runs into downtown without changing the overall number, but the routes in suburbs get converted to local services and/or existing local services see increased frequency). So rather than being "more passengers on less [sic] buses", it's actually "more passengers on the same number of larger buses".

The bus fleet keeps growing in size while the fraction of it that is articulated also keeps growing.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you checked out their website recently?

http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/

Seems there's plenty amongst the most recent posts about stuff that affects bus riders and only one about train riders (the $700 hydro pole at Bayview that actually affects nearby residents more than train passengers). You're just not hearing from them in the media.




I think you're ignoring the fact that right now more and more express routes are being run with articulated buses without much of a change in frequency (route consolidations and conversions are eliminating some runs into downtown without changing the overall number, but the routes in suburbs get converted to local services and/or existing local services see increased frequency). So rather than being "more passengers on less [sic] buses", it's actually "more passengers on the same number of larger buses".

The bus fleet keeps growing in size while the fraction of it that is articulated also keeps growing.

I said I was stupid. I don't see many recent posts when going to the link. Maybe I am missing something.

On articulated buses, of course what you say is correct. My point is that the city will find a way to botch a switchover to make things worse. I refer to route 148 and 149, which probably has no better service and in some respects worse service since local and express routes were combined. There is that real temptation to cut back frequency if the buses aren't full, and if you bump local route frequency up, of course, buses won't be full anymore. So, at the time of switchover, they may have increase the frequency from 20 minutes to 15 minutes, but then the buses weren't quite as full as they used to be, so after a year or two, they lower the frequency back down to every 20 minutes. All benefits are lost, in fact there is a disadvantage since you now have to transfer.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you checked out their website recently?

http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/

Seems there's plenty amongst the most recent posts about stuff that affects bus riders and only one about train riders (the $700 hydro pole at Bayview that actually affects nearby residents more than train passengers). You're just not hearing from them in the media.

So I went to check out their website and immediately noticed the following article (it's the second one if you scroll down):

Transitway fails again

May 19, 2010 - 9:13am — mcr
One of the things we are told regularly is how "flexible" a bus system is. What we observe however, is how frequently it fails:
Not only is each of these buses putting out diesel (on a warm day), but each one of the buses has a driver paid by the hour to sit there. And, each one of those buses is mostly empty (this is going into the downtown), and there are thousands of people waiting for *their* bus to take them home.

The article even included a couple of pictures.

Notwithstanding the two useless comments to the article, there was no explanation given for the precise cause of failure. It had to be the bus system’s fault. End of story.

Fortunately, from another website, I was able to piece together what happened. It turns out that the backup was caused by overaggressive car drivers on Nicholas who ended up blocking the Transitway between Laurier Station and Mackenzie King Station (see comments section of http://community.livejournal.com/octranspo/711038.html ). Normal congestion on Nicholas was aggravated by construction. The next day, a cop was present and, surprise, there was no problem.

So unless one believes that trains can just plow into blocking cars with no consequences, this failure had nothing to do with the bus system and had everything to do with enforcement. The lesson here is that no enforcement = numerous traffic violations = bus congestion. It’s too bad that the City has not applied this lesson to Albert, Slater and Wellington, as well as the STO eastbound stop at the Rideau Centre. There, tens of thousands of riders are negatively impacted on a daily basis by traffic violations, yet enforcement is completed absent. If they really cared about transit riders, Friends of the O-Train would use their camera to take pictures of the flagrant traffic violations (illegal turns, trucks parked in the bus lane, parked tour buses blocking entire lanes of traffic, garbage trucks doing pick-up at the height of rush hour, taxis encroaching into the transit stops, etc.) and make a stink until the City did something about it.

BTW – It looks like the City is about to rebuild some of the downtown stops. Temporary ones have been built, but they are not as long as the existing ones and are hampered by being right next to turn-offs into garages. It looks like it will be a long, hot summer with major delays. Based on the article above, don’t be surprised if Friends of the O-Train show up again with their camera and blame the bus system for the delays.

[OttawaSteve]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Fortunately, from another website, I was able to piece together what happened. It turns out that the backup was caused by overaggressive car drivers on Nicholas who ended up blocking the Transitway between Laurier Station and Mackenzie King Station (see comments section of http://community.livejournal.com/octranspo/711038.html ). Normal congestion on Nicholas was aggravated by construction. The next day, a cop was present and, surprise, there was no problem.

So unless one believes that trains can just plow into blocking cars with no consequences, this failure had nothing to do with the bus system and had everything to do with enforcement. The lesson here is that no enforcement = numerous traffic violations = bus congestion. It’s too bad that the City has not applied this lesson to Albert, Slater and Wellington, as well as the STO eastbound stop at the Rideau Centre. There, tens of thousands of riders are negatively impacted on a daily basis by traffic violations, yet enforcement is completed absent. If they really cared about transit riders, Friends of the O-Train would use their camera to take pictures of the flagrant traffic violations (illegal turns, trucks parked in the bus lane, parked tour buses blocking entire lanes of traffic, garbage trucks doing pick-up at the height of rush hour, taxis encroaching into the transit stops, etc.) and make a stink until the City did something about it.

A couple of points:

First, downtown traffic patterns are so complicated that there is often no single "cause" for traffic jams. However, on the day in question, Cumberland Street was closed between Besserer and Rideau because of a crane doing work on Claridge Plaza II. That likely contributed to congestion on Nicholas/Waller, of the sort which often leads to the Transitway being blocked.

Second, yes, there was a cop at the Transitway and Waller the next day, but that wasn't the reason there were no delays. Traffic was just flowing much better through the area, as was evident in the lack of a backup on Nicholas as there had been the day before (when it was stopped as far back as the Queensway); I suspect a combination of factors, like people taking other routes; better real-time management of signals by Traffic Operations, etc.

That being said, the presence of police at certain downtown intersections during rush hour on a regular basis is sorely needed, to improve the flow of not just transit but also pedestrians and yes, regular traffic. This is common practice in a number of major cities.

The other issue, related to bus rapid transit specifically, is that the Transitway is at capacity. The sheer volume of buses heading westbound into downtown, between 4:00 and 4:30 especially, means that the slightest delay can have a major ripple effect.

Finally, I don't think Friends of the O-Train own a camera. They have re-published my photos on their website, to serve their own interests, without my knowledge or my permission.

[Aylmer]

... Welcome to the internet, Suzie.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Notwithstanding the two useless comments to the article, there was no explanation given for the precise cause of failure. It had to be the bus system’s fault. End of story.

Unlike your own conclusion, which, as we shall see, is even worse. At least they didn't speculate as to the precise cause to fit a pre-conceived narrative like you did.

Fortunately, from another website, I was able to piece together what happened. It turns out that the backup was caused by overaggressive car drivers on Nicholas who ended up blocking the Transitway between Laurier Station and Mackenzie King Station (see comments section of http://community.livejournal.com/octranspo/711038.html ). Normal congestion on Nicholas was aggravated by construction. The next day, a cop was present and, surprise, there was no problem.

Except that's not what happened. That was just speculation on their part which you've just embellished with talk of "overaggressive car drivers". Someone on that page just "guessed" that it was traffic at Nicholas-Waller. But rationally, for it to create the tailback it did all the way back to Lees, this traffic would have to be blocking the buses over the course of several cycles in a row. At 180 buses/hour, there's about three buses arriving per minute - so that queue had to form over many many cycles, not just one or two. There's about 1.5 km to Lees from Waller, and assuming an average bus length of 15 m (12 for standard, 18 for artics), we're looking at about 100 queued buses and upwards of 30 minutes' of queueing.That would have required the intersection to be blocked pretty much all the time with no possibility of getting a bus through, with cross-traffic either never moving and clearing and/or always getting reblocked if it did move. Moreover, a good chunk of the buses (i.e. a few minutes' worth) would be able to get through on one light cycle if the intersection cleared even once every few cycles (the limiting factor being the number of buses "ready to go" at Laurier Station up to Nicholas-Waller). The likelihood of such a thorough grid-locking over such an extended period of time is improbable. So something else had to be the cause, or at least the main cause.

Had you visited the flickr link you would have seen one more key photograph and you would have seen that a cause other than blockage at Waller had to be the case, but you're seeing the facts you want to see because you've jumped to a conclusion as to the specific cause:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/4620479484/in/photostream/

Same day, same bus jam - except it's also on the McKenzie King Bridge west of and therefore beyond McKenzie King Station and the Waller intersection. At a minimum, this bus jam extended to Elgin and likely extended all the way across downtown Ottawa on Albert. This wasn't caused by a problem at Nicholas. If the problem had been at Nicholas, the bridge would have been devoid or virtually devoid of buses in the westbound direction.

So much for your investigation. All I had to do was keep pressing the next picture button at flickr. Which makes the rest of your post below speculative rubbish.

So unless one believes that trains can just plow into blocking cars with no consequences, this failure had nothing to do with the bus system and had everything to do with enforcement. The lesson here is that no enforcement = numerous traffic violations = bus congestion. It’s too bad that the City has not applied this lesson to Albert, Slater and Wellington, as well as the STO eastbound stop at the Rideau Centre. There, tens of thousands of riders are negatively impacted on a daily basis by traffic violations, yet enforcement is completed absent. If they really cared about transit riders, Friends of the O-Train would use their camera to take pictures of the flagrant traffic violations (illegal turns, trucks parked in the bus lane, parked tour buses blocking entire lanes of traffic, garbage trucks doing pick-up at the height of rush hour, taxis encroaching into the transit stops, etc.) and make a stink until the City did something about it.

BTW – It looks like the City is about to rebuild some of the downtown stops. Temporary ones have been built, but they are not as long as the existing ones and are hampered by being right next to turn-offs into garages. It looks like it will be a long, hot summer with major delays. Based on the article above, don’t be surprised if Friends of the O-Train show up again with their camera and blame the bus system for the delays.

Except of course they didn't show up because you didn't bother to find out who actually took the photographs. You just jumped to a conclusion that it was them. As I wrote before, I can't see how you could have even followed the link they posted, although they should have been more explicit in crediting the photographs. Why would a photo gallery from them be populated with bus pictures from all over, including plenty from Ottawa when buses are not stuck in traffic jams? Or indeed I'm not sure you even looked at the url of the link - why would Friends of the O-Train open a flickr account with the name 'ottawabusgallery' in the url rather than something more like, oh, I don't know, say, 'friendsoftheotrain'?


At any rate, the changes downtown do prove one thing: platforms can be modified while keeping rapid transit running. Complete shutdowns are not required. That would be something worth photographing.

[lrt's friend]

All types of transit will encounter problems from time to time. This is not unique to buses. Go Trains will shut down from time to time as has been the case with our O-Train. Portions of subways shut down as well.

How do we minimize these problems? By providing redundency. This is one of my beefs about the tunnel plan. In building the tunnel, we are actually closing our main surface transit access to downtown. So, if anything goes wrong in the tunnel, most of our downtown transit system simply shuts down. Keep those running shoes handy!

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

All types of transit will encounter problems from time to time. This is not unique to buses. Go Trains will shut down from time to time as has been the case with our O-Train. Portions of subways shut down as well.

How do we minimize these problems? By providing redundency. This is one of my beefs about the tunnel plan. In building the tunnel, we are actually closing our main surface transit access to downtown. So, if anything goes wrong in the tunnel, most of our downtown transit system simply shuts down. Keep those running shoes handy!

That's a critical reason why we need surface and tunnel. We need a system that can fail into a partial operations mode, and not fail completely.

Heck, the surface route would probably be 2 or 3 car trains, but there's no reason you couldn't have a 4-car configuration planned for in the case of a tunnel outage. What would the city do if the tunnel needed a month or two of remedial work 10 years after opening? We should plan for it now. Maybe we could change the street light timing. Install some temporary steps and shelters to extend surface station lengths to handle 4-car trains. It would be a hassle, but much better than having no train system at all.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

If we were starting from scratch with no BRT transitway then I'd agree with you. But I have no desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to widen streets, buy more buses, hire more drivers and build new infrastructure to handle putting the transitway buses through neighbourhoods while the BRT is shut down for LRT conversion.

If we can spend that money on short-train surface LRT in such a way that we gain a permanent asset instead of throwing it away then that's a good thing.

In a perfect world we'd be building the tunnel at the same time. Maybe we can afford it if we cut some corners. Get rid of Hurdman station. Excavate 180m stations but only build 120m ones. Perhaps only install half the facilities (escalators, washrooms, etc.) called for in the final design. If we can get the tunnel up and running for less then we should do it. Postpone any purchase required for achieving full capacity.

Nobody is forcing the city to do a temporary Transitway elsewhere, if people don't want to have any traffic on THEIR street, then they can pay the increase in property taxes themselves. Sure it will be a horrible 2-3 years, but city building requires it.

You can build 120m stations if you use other technologies than LRT. 180m LRT stations do not exist anywhere else in the world, period. When you need 180m LRT trains, you build a metro.

International standards for tunnels now include two full entrances, plus elevators. It's not something the city can cheap out on.


As for the comment on it would be wasteful to scrap the Transitway, when your car costs more in repairs than to buy a new one, you scrap it.