Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

You talk as if a plan is done once and then that is it. That is one of the big problems here. Let’s take the N-S LRT plan; it was a long range plan for a limited part of the city that was created in isolation from everything else that needed to be incorporated. Unfortunately, when a larger view was established, things had changed but there was no re-evaluation based on changes in the big picture. The TMP was to look at a system for the entire city, but the old N-S plan was simply slid in because it was already done. The big picture changes and the plan must always be refined. There will always be need to extend the plan as parts are completed, or move in new directions as conditions change. When only a N-S route was being done, and it was to be rail, and it was viewed that it should be along the existing rail line, then the N-S LRT plan might have made sense. However, once the scope was widened to convert the Transitway to rail, then the plan should have been re-evaluated to see if , say, converting the S-E Transitway to rail would have made a better system.

There are lots of things that change and a lot of them might not be within the City’s control; for example, the Province has decided to review its plans for the Eagleson Road Bridge over the 417. In this instance, there should be a review of the Western Transitway’s extension to see if a fly-over could be incorporated in the new structure to move the Transitway to the south of the 417, where the Park & Ride is located. But this can’t be done in the City’s usual manner of asking a Contractor is the section from Moodie to Eagleson should be south of the 417 because that is disconnected from the other portions of the system. Maybe it would be better to cross the 417 at Bayshore to simplify the future BRT link to Baseline Road. A branch could go south while the main Transitway goes west, avoiding the problems with the Crystal Beach community and going directly to the Park & Ride.

Currently the City says it has a Master Plan, but it doesn’t; it has a series of vague, but related ideas which might or might not be joined or implemented. And this goes a lot farther than just for transportation; it should cover ALL of what the City does. For example, the City is spending $7M upgrading the Booth Street Sewer Regulator; has that digging been integrated with the possible combined sewage overflow tank; or the foundation for the new Booth Street Bridge; or laying the infrastructure to help develop that area in the future?

When I refer to an over-all, integrated grand scheme, or plan, I am not looking at a Greber report which takes a city and creates a one-time static plan. I am talking about the realization that a city is a system with many inter-related parts. Just planning a short 2 Km length of rail line is not planning in a cohesive manner. A plan must be able to take a much bigger picture and incorporate many facets. Then, when something changes, all of those connections must be revisited to determine if the plan is still valid or whether it need revision and how, in the context of everything surrounding it.

From my point of view, planning a transit system is a lot more than finding a line on a map by which the City can move 15,000 people per hour per direction from the suburbs to the downtown core. For me, it involves looking at the other opportunities of the entire system of the city. There has been a lot of design work done for the Nicholas Gateway (the area of Lees Avenue and Robinson Park) but when the conversion to rail was decreed for the Transitway, there were no elements to incorporate things from the design charet; why not? The train is being build up on a berm across Hurdman, splitting it into two sections; is there no better way; one that leaves the area in a more developable state? I could go on and on, but I am hoping that I have made my point clearer.

Big picture planning is being able to see that one thing influences many others and that they in turn influence the one. It is not a static thing, continually evolving with no part in isolation from the others.

You make valid points. The way the N-S plan was plunked down into the new plan. But the N-S plan was also compromised by converting the western most leg into a busway. It makes no sense to do this. I call it the orphan busway that has little value unless it is connected to a continuous route into the city. The lack of coordinated planning is perfectly illustrated by the opening of the Park n Ride lot in Riverside South that will not be connected to LRT once LRT to Riverside South is completed. It is pure stupidity.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As for when the current plan should have extended rail to the suburbs; I think you should be looking at the number of people riding the transit system, not the number of people living around it.

Why should there ever be train stations at Iris, the Queensway, Train, or Cyrville? These stations certainly don’t generate as much ridership change as Fallowfield Stations does. And what is the influx count of passengers at Baseline Station going north in the morning? I expect that most of the people going north from Baseline were on the same buses south of Baseline.

Think of it this way; if there were a straight line of green-field between Baseline and Fallowfield Stations, with no obstacles, and suitable for laying a train track, would it have made sense to extend the tracks to Fallowfield? If there is to be such a savings by replacing buses with the train on 22Km (Blair to Baseline), surely replacing hundreds more buses a day between Baseline and Fallowfield would soon save enough to pay for the extra track?

For fun let’s say it costs $50M per Km for twin rail lines through green-fields (although the City’s estimate was less than half that for the line to RS, 10Km for $173M) so to go the roughly 6 Kilometres from Baseline to Fallowfield would be about $300M. If the savings from not running every bus twelve Kilometres across the Greenbelt and back just to dump off their Barrhaven passengers was $20M per year, then it would take 15 years for pay-back. Is this a reasonable return?

As well, the Baseline Station could have been designed much differently, perhaps saving a considerable amount of money. Also, because the buses are traveling a much shorter distance, then many fewer buses are required, further saving money. And, finally, since the distance on the train would be significant, there would be no reason to duplicate the rail and bus lines between Baseline and Lincoln Fields Stations, reducing both the capital and operating costs.

Of course, these numbers were pulled out of a hat, and there is not a direct path from Baseline to Fallowfield because there is a 500 metre obstacle containing houses; but if it were so, would rail to Barrhaven be justified? If it took an extra 10 years to pay back, would it be justified then? Wouldn’t it have helped to have had proper planning to reserve the transportation corridor before those houses were built?

Absolutely, the suburbs tend to be low density, but it just might be that using local buses as concentrators to a single spot can overcome that problem. Indeed, that is exactly what the transit planners intend to do. However, the point at which they are concentrating the crowds is at Baseline and not at Fallowfield; meaning that those ‘local’ concentrator buses need to travel an extra twelve Kilometres across the Greenbelt and back.

Is it also possible that if Barrhaven had a train running all the way to it that there would be an incentive for more businesses to locate there? Maybe more of the RCMP personnel would travel by train and shuttle bus to work.

Wasn't that why the N-S plan was extended to Barrhaven Town Centre? It was a greenfield route that could be built very inexpensively. Wasn't it also planned to run all the Barrhaven collectors to Barrhaven Town Centre (and Fallowfield) therefore saving money of running collectors to Baseline and expresses downtown. Wasn't there even consideration of a spur line to the RCMP site?

I think the time issue that was so blatantly used by opponents amounted to a few minutes at most, and in many cases could be made up by those not needing to use a collector bus because the location of the route allowed for significant walk on passengers.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The City is spending $149 million extra to support transit service during construction, which will be spread over those 3-5 years. But the new line will save $100 million per year in operating costs. So why delay the current project (which based on the current timeline won't be ready til 2019) and start this whole new Carling + downtown surface line?

Good questions. But those costs won't just happen once. They'll happen in the next phase too, when more of the western trench gets converted to rail.

Your criticisms have clarified something for me. The downtown surface line doesn't need to happen right away. It should be part of the system eventually though. But building a 7.5km line from Lincoln Fields to O-Train instead of converting part of the trench north of Scott street seems like a good approach. Go from Bayview south along the O-Train cut and then west along Carling.

On a separate but related topic, I know the Carling alignment is by far the most expensive for the mainline LRT due to the high cost of segregating it. But given that a Carling alignment doesn't require BRT diversion, and probably drives more intensification and has more nearby population and destination draws, perhaps the economics would actually favour it in the long run.

But instead of considering those questions now, we're going ahead with a plan that doesn't include those questions yet, and spends money we might not need to spend. It seems shortsighted.

[waterloowarrior]

from the Hampton Iona CA http://hamptoniona.wordpress.com/2010/06...ironmental-assessment-process-has-begun/

Western LRT – Planning and Environmental Assessment Process Has Begun

Kevin O’Donnell is representing Hampton Iona at discussions over the proposed western leg of the LRT. He attended the public consultation meeting on June 21st and files this report (cross-posted from his website):

The City of Ottawa has begun the Western LRT Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment project. This project is going to determine the route that light rail will take as it leaves Downtown (at Bayview station) and heads to Baseline Station. While the current Transit Master Plan (TMP) chose the Western Parkway, this study is going to “wipe the slate clean” and look at all the route options. Anything from the Western Parkway, Byron Avenue, O-Train cut, Carling Avenue, Churchill, etc, are on the table for review and investigation.

The NCC has not said one way or another that they will permit light rail on the parkway. But the NCC was a key contributor in designing the study and process we are about to work through. The feeling at the City is that the NCC wants to make sure the City has really investigated alternate routes and is not choosing the parkway simply because its there and is the easy”status-quo” choice.

The City is engaging stakeholders by forming three different input groups: agency, business and public. The Agency groups are composed of government ministries and agencies that are involved because they are a major employer, land holder or provide oversight to the Environment Assessment process. The Business group is made up of the school boards, hospitals and BIAs in the area. Finally the Public group is made up of Community Associations, advocacy groups and members from the City Advisory Committees.

Monday June 21st was the first day of meetings between the City and the consultation groups. The agenda was to get the groups up to speed on how the process will work and to invite the groups to offer feedback on the process itself.

The next meeting in September is where we’ll get into the real details of choosing an alternate route. Delcan will be preparing a number of options that we can review at that point. Both the City and Delcan were very up front about the fact that all options are on the table. As we go through the process we’ll “fan out” to explore all sorts of routes (parkway, carling, o-train, byron, etc) and designs (underground, below grade, overhead, etc) then whittle the options done until we reach just one.

As the representative for Hampton Iona I will be attending all of the public consultation meetings. If you have questions feel free to send them over and I’ll do my best to get you an answer, or at least help by pointing you in the right direction. The Western LRT won’t be built for quite a few years, but now is the time to make sure we make the best decision for the City’s long term health, efficiency and livability.

Western LRT Corridor, Planning and Environmental Assessment, Study Design and Schedule Document (PDF)

[lrt's friend]

They are certainly not in any sort of hurry to get this going. How long ago was this approved by City Council?

The Western LRT won’t be built for quite a few years,

I guess this tells us a lot. LRT will continue to progress at a snail's pace. Of course, once the city runs out of money, this is preparing us for the inevitable. Maybe we will have a $200 M white elephant station at Baseline for a couple of decades.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They are certainly not in any sort of hurry to get this going. How long ago was this approved by City Council?

I guess this tells us a lot. LRT will continue to progress at a snail's pace. Of course, once the city runs out of money, this is preparing us for the inevitable. Maybe we will have a $200 M white elephant station at Baseline for a couple of decades.

Council has slotted this work into Increment 2 of Phase 1 of the modified Scenario 3 of the approved DOTT plan. This is the same time frame as the conversion of the O-Train to dual track, electric LRT. Increment 2 is, obviously, to be done after Increment 1 which involves the 13 Km of track between Blair and Tunney's Pasture through the tunnel. Since the tunnel is planned to be finished about 2019, the Increment 1 work could reasonably be expected to be finished around 2020. If money is available after that (remembering that paying off the debt incurred by Increment 1 will take longer than 9 years) the Increment 2 tasks could be started. I would imagine that it would take three years to complete the link from Bayview to Baseline. Assuming all goes well, we might be taking a train from Blair to Baseline in 2024.

Given a life span of about 50 years for the new structure at Baseline, it will likeky be in need some rehabilitation around the time the train arrives there in about 15 years (assuming money is available).

[jk1982]

I dont get this... another what, 15-20 years of transit disruptions... what is the point in building it OC Transpo will just end up pushing everyone away... why is it in toronto it will take them until what 2015 ish to get their LRT system up and running and it is going to take us atleast double that amount... Frig I hate Ottawas Politicians they all want to make it their baby and their legacy...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jk1982

I dont get this... another what, 15-20 years of transit disruptions... what is the point in building it OC Transpo will just end up pushing everyone away... why is it in toronto it will take them until what 2015 ish to get their LRT system up and running and it is going to take us atleast double that amount... Frig I hate Ottawas Politicians they all want to make it their baby and their legacy...

Now you understand why I am so upset with all this business of building Transitways and then converting them to LRT. It is recipe for rapid transit disruptions forever. We keep building more Transitways and then we plan on converting them later. This is insane. Any other city, simply chooses. Is it BRT, LRT or HRT on a particular corridor? Then stick with it. If you want some interim measure, do something cheap, like bus lanes and signal priorities. Look at what Calgary does. It is like we ignore their success in designing our rapid transit system.

I have a lot of reasons for not liking Clive Doucet, but his comments about our transit plan being really a bus plan is bang on.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Now you understand why I am so upset with all this business of building Transitways and then converting them to LRT. It is recipe for rapid transit disruptions forever. We keep building more Transitways and then we plan on converting them later. This is insane. Any other city, simply chooses. Is it BRT, LRT or HRT on a particular corridor? Then stick with it. If you want some interim measure, do something cheap, like bus lanes and signal priorities. Look at what Calgary does. It is like we ignore their success in designing our rapid transit system.

I have a lot of reasons for not liking Clive Doucet, but his comments about our transit plan being really a bus plan is bang on.

What I never understood, is the need for two charts when planning transit corridors. One for the GTA, and one for Ottawa.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

What I never understood, is the need for two charts when planning transit corridors. One for the GTA, and one for Ottawa.

Brought to you, perhaps, by the same people who brought you two different standards for provincial cost-sharing contributions to transit capital projects; one for the GTA, and one for Ottawa.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Brought to you, perhaps, by the same people who brought you two different standards for provincial cost-sharing contributions to transit capital projects; one for the GTA, and one for Ottawa.

Has always pissed me right off, Ottawa always gets the shaft, toronto's getting there metrolinx 5 LRT/subway/extensions in the next ten years ^

I'd like to run the numbers accually and see how much track and stations there getting down for the 10Billion!

Thanks for the 600 million feds. fuck.

[lrt's friend]

Just in case you haven't noticed, $300M of provincial funding has been announced for Kitchener-Waterloo rapid transit. Which city will open LRT first? I am putting my money on Kitchener-Waterloo.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just in case you haven't noticed, $300M of provincial funding has been announced for Kitchener-Waterloo rapid transit. Which city will open LRT first? I am putting my money on Kitchener-Waterloo.

From my understanding $300M is not enough. The funding model they were looking at was 2/3's provincial and 1/3 federal for a total of $890M. Only $300from Ontario and presumably $150M from the Feds will only cover about half the projected cost.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

From my understanding $300M is not enough. The funding model they were looking at was 2/3's provincial and 1/3 federal for a total of $890M. Only $300from Ontario and presumably $150M from the Feds will only cover about half the projected cost.

Doesn't that problem sound familiar? $600M is not enough for our plan either.

[McC]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

From my understanding $300M is not enough. The funding model they were looking at was 2/3's provincial and 1/3 federal for a total of $890M. Only $300from Ontario and presumably $150M from the Feds will only cover about half the projected cost.

The standard fed-prov-municipal cost-sharing model for local infrastructure projects under programs such as Building Canada is 1/3, 1/3, 1/3; in which case K-W would have all the funding it needs for the project.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by McC

The standard fed-prov-municipal cost-sharing model for local infrastructure projects under programs such as Building Canada is 1/3, 1/3, 1/3; in which case K-W would have all the funding it needs for the project.

Municipalities have about 12% of total tax revenues. How do you think they can pay their share? Plus the stupid 3x the studies depending on each level.

Put the province in charge of infrastructures, THAT'IT. Feds would lower taxes and the province would put it higher. Canada's productivity is lacking mostly because of financial arrangements like that.

[McC]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Municipalities have about 12% of total tax revenues. How do you think they can pay their share? Plus the stupid 3x the studies depending on each level.

Put the province in charge of infrastructures, THAT'IT. Feds would lower taxes and the province would put it higher. Canada's productivity is lacking mostly because of financial arrangements like that.

fair enough, I was just talking about the way the federal infrastructure programs generally work at this time; I was not making a normative argument about how they ought to work.
That said, the "even shares" cost-sharing model seems to have worked well for the Canada line and is being repeated for the Evergreen line in Vancouver, as well as other transit projects in Edmonton and Calgary. But those cities have fewer local social programs that are funded by property taxes than we do in Ontario, so it might be easier for the local tax base to fund 1/3 of major transit infrastructure (Vancouver's Translink has a gas tax, a land development role, and other funding mechanisms available, which have helped as well).

[waterloowarrior]

Story on art in Longfields transitway station (currently U/C)

I walked by the construction site a month or two ago and it looked pretty good!

[jk1982]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Now you understand why I am so upset with all this business of building Transitways and then converting them to LRT. It is recipe for rapid transit disruptions forever. We keep building more Transitways and then we plan on converting them later. This is insane. Any other city, simply chooses. Is it BRT, LRT or HRT on a particular corridor? Then stick with it. If you want some interim measure, do something cheap, like bus lanes and signal priorities. Look at what Calgary does. It is like we ignore their success in designing our rapid transit system.

I have a lot of reasons for not liking Clive Doucet, but his comments about our transit plan being really a bus plan is bang on.

It is a bus plan, truly and truly, what is going to happen when we have to close down the rail system for track maintenance for a month... so everyone downtown would have to put up for a month worth of disruptions except, without having the transitway from Tunneys through to Blair... oh crikeee I am not looking forward to that, get me my car keys

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by jk1982

what is going to happen when we have to close down the rail system for track maintenance for a month... so everyone downtown would have to put up for a month worth of disruptions except, without having the transitway from Tunneys through to Blair... oh crikeee I am not looking forward to that, get me my car keys

As with most other cities, track maintenance is done after hours when the trains are not running. This is almost up there as "OMG it's going to run underneath the water in the canal!"