Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Deez]

Thanks.

My master's thesis is an evaluation of the VIVA system in York Region. My main focus is more on the ridership impact side of things, but your work might still prove useful.

[RTWAP]

I just got back from the Western LRT Corridor public consultation. It was fairly busy. They had to take out extra chairs and there was still a crowd standing at the back.

Their were a lot of people with concerns about local impacts, but they were diffuse. Some were denigrating the ORP option. Some wanted more local stations. Some wanted the LRT to go elsewhere. Some didn't want LRT at all and instead wanted commuter rail on existing rail lines.

My sense from the tone, the criteria and the way the information was presented was that the ORP option is not likely. And the feedback seemed to be that nobody was heartbroken to see it go.

There was some strongly voiced concern about losing greenspace, which I took to mean the Byron linear park. Both in side conversations and in the presentation there was mention of removing trees and then putting some or most of them back. I heard one project team member say it made a lot of sense to cut and cover for that section. The presenter from the city also pointed out that Byron has a lot of pedestrian and road crossings that would need to be protected.

I think if the proposal is cut and cover under Byron then the community would probably come around. They just don't want to lose a park and gain a trench.

They were also asked about staging, and answered fairly clearly that they expect this project not to start construction until after the DOTT is done. They said not to expect shovels in the ground before 2018. I hope an opportunity presents itself to put the two projects inline and roll out a Baseline to Blair system from the start.

They also mentioned returning portions of Pinecrest Creek to the surface as something they would like to do, if they can.

The project team seems a little dubious about the original decision to run BRT and LRT from Baseline to Lincoln Fields. I expect they'll have some positive things to say about other options.

Finally, I met Richard Eade. It's always nice to put a face to a name, and especially so when you have a great deal of respect for the person.

[lrt's friend]

Just reading this makes me think the price tag will rise by hundreds of millions.

What is particularly worrisome is the possibility that the resulting system will be slower than the current Transitway.

I do believe that it is fantasy land to believe that a Baseline to Blair LRT line will open at the same time, unless everything gets delayed. The money is not there and as we are seeing, there is a lack of consensus on the routing. This was, of course, predictable.

[Kitchissippi]

The public consultation seemed better structured than others I've been to. I also predict that the Richmond/Byron corridor (probably Byron since there are major sewers under Richmond) will win out if it is cut-and-cover. It will be cheaper than any of the Carling options, and will result in a dedicated ROW that can be automated. The ORP looks the least desirable with regards to development and community access.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What is particularly worrisome is the possibility that the resulting system will be slower than the current Transitway.

Even if this proved to be true, it's not the metric by which you would want to judge the project. Sure, the current stretch of Transitway along the ORP is fast, but it straddles the river and serves literally no one along this section...riders in that area have to spend a lot of extra effort to access it. A better way to look at it would be to assess the total or average travel time saved. Even though some time may be added for longer distance commuters, I would wager it would be more than offset by the savings for west end residents (whether they be from the immediate area or otherwise) that have facilitated access to high quality transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Deez

Even if this proved to be true, it's not the metric by which you would want to judge the project. Sure, the current stretch of Transitway along the ORP is fast, but it straddles the river and serves literally no one along this section...riders in that area have to spend a lot of extra effort to access it. A better way to look at it would be to assess the total or average travel time saved. Even though some time may be added for longer distance commuters, I would wager it would be more than offset by the savings for west end residents (whether they be from the immediate area or otherwise) that have facilitated access to high quality transit.

Don't you think we are trying to do too much with one rapid transit route? We are trying to force one route to be both a commuter service and an urban service. There will be winners and losers by doing this and unfortunately, the growth areas, ie commuters, will be the losers. We have to be careful when revising our commuter route because there needs to be perceived value after spending billions. We also have to understand that if our planned revision slows things down significantly, there may be no way to rectify the problem later.

[lrt's friend]

Just as I reported that Edmonton will be building surface LRT downtown in addition to its tunnel, Calgary is now considering building BRT with at least a portion being a busway and yes, it will run downtown and not feed into a C-Train station in the suburbs. Why would Calgary ever do this? Basically, to provide more portions of the city with faster service into downtown but at a lower capital cost than building more LRT lines. Also, to relieve loading on the C-Train which has reached capacity and is affecting service reliability because trains are too full to board.

[Kitchissippi]

The entire length of the ORP is there to use for BRT if need be. In fact this part of the corridor will probably be the most painless to build. If there is need for express buses in the future, they can use the parkway all the way downtown or Tunney's Pasture.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The entire length of the ORP is there to use for BRT if need be. In fact this part of the corridor will probably be the most painless to build. If there is need for express buses in the future, they can use the parkway all the way downtown or Tunney's Pasture.

exactly! I really don't think we need such expensive and disruptive "temporary measures" on Scott and Albert Streets, or such a massive expansion of Tunney's for Bus transfers -- split the transfer load between Tunneys, Bayview and Lebreton using the ORP!

[Richard Eade]

I think what we have here is a classic case of “You don’t have to be wrong for me to be right”. When I read the points brought up be many of the posters, I see very valid arguments. There are many facets to the Transit system and this is why a forum like this is so important; there is always someone looking at the problem from a different perspective.

As unfortunate as it is, the Western LRT Corridor Study has some fixed criteria: As was said at the Public Open House last evening, they have been tasked with finding the best rapid transit route from Bayview to Baseline stations; it is unlikely that they have the ability to recommend that there be no rapid transit route, or to specify an entire transit network. It might have ultimately produced a better system if there were a full grid of trains, including Express trains which could by-pass stations, but such is well beyond the scope of this study, and likely the financial capability of the City so I expect it will not happen.

With an estimated ⅔ to ¾ of the people using transit in the study area simply passing through, it does make a lot of sense to try to have a fast ‘through’ route for the morning and afternoon commuters. That said, there is a high cost to electrified rail infrastructure so it is best to use it for as many riders as possible with all-day use; which means providing many local connections within the study area. Because of restrictions on finances, space, and a number of other factors, it has been decided that there will be a single major transit route joining Bayview to Baseline and it will be a compromise, providing both regional and local service. That word “compromise” is the key word. Yes, the line might include more stops and be slightly slower than the limited-stop bus line we currently enjoy, but it will provide better access to locations within the study area. And yes, the new line will have fewer stops than would be ideal for people going to any location along its length, but it will get them to the main locations slightly faster than a purely ‘Local’ route.

Deez’s point, for example, about people living around a new Cleary Station having a faster trip to downtown is quite valid. Currently those folks need to travel by local bus to a rapid transit station to be whisked downtown (if they don’t just stay on the local and weave to downtown). Having a new stop for the rapid transit line within easy walking distance will surely speed up their trip.

lrt’s friend, on the other-hand, is quite correct in pointing out that adding extra stops will slow down the trip for the rest of the riders. It is possible that the slower ride will push some transit users to find other faster ways (probably car) to get to their destination. However, the added stop might encourage people who formerly took their car because of the slow local bus connection to switch to transit.

It is this type of compromise that the study team will be struggling with; a slightly slower run, but better local access; limited local access, but a slightly faster service. Undoubtedly, they have computer models which will show an optimum compromise with which most people will be satisfied – even if they don’t think it is the best it could possibly be for them.

I hope the people on this (and other) forum(s) will continue to voice their views on the transit developments. I for one find the different, well informed ideas invaluable. It might sound a bit trite, but as a person with a lot of interest in this topic, I do appreciate the time and efforts that people put into sharing their thoughts and information.

[Ottawan]

I'm going to throw this out there as a resident of Kitchissippi who lives very near to the Scott Street trench portion of the transitway (full disclosure, this makes me suceptible to NIMBYism regarding the issue, which is why I would appreciate others' impartial opinions).

When the western leg of the transitway is converted to LRT to Baseline, assuming it is by Byron through a cut and cover (which I believe is the most likely outcome), why could we not cover the pre-existing cut from Tunney's (or preferably where it becomes grade separated between Tunney's and Bayview) to Dominion? I'm sure that this was not considered when the transitway was first built due to a combination of cost, and the difficulties involved with ventalation for BRT.

With the conversion there is an excellent opportunity to create a more vibrant, connected, pedestrian-friendly, cycling-friendly and intensification-ready community by covering the trench, and replacing it with a linear park, including segragated cycling lanes seperate from the pre-existing multi-use path.

I'm sure this proposal would cost some money, but I don't see why the more affluent residents living along the Byron corridor should be able to maintain their linear park and cover their rapid transit route when ours remains a trench that separates the communities to the north and south. Sure this will cost some change, but the 'cut' is already complete - the cost to cover will be significantly cheaper to appease those near to the trench than performing both the cut and the cover to appease the Byron residents (where surface LRT could be a viable option).

One final benefit of covering would be operational - no need to worry about snow, freezing rain, etc. interfering with the track or the electrical wires throughout the covered portion of the transit line.

[Kitchissippi]

I'm sure this could happen but not as a transit project. It could be a developer-driven thing, but city endorsed. Maybe in some parts building over the trench should be allowed, or in exchange for covering over x length of the trench for greenspace, extra height would be allowed on the other side of the street.

[Dado]

Personally, I dislike the idea of covering transit regardless. Why should transit users be deprived of daylight as well as views compared to their car-driving colleagues, all for extra expense? There might be cases where localized covering of the trench makes some sense (say immediately either side of Island Park, or near the mosque) where the covered trench would be useful, but as a general thing, what's the point?

Anyway, it does bear pointing out that the Byron-Richmond corridor is considerably narrower than the Scott corridor, so there's even less of a reason to cover the latter. With respect to the former, I'd say do it only if the City is going to develop on top of it. That means placing the line immediately south of Richmond (rather than in the middle between it and Byron, or next to Byron) so the buildings frame Richmond. Of course parking becomes an issue, so either the line is deep enough to allow a level of parking between the line and the ground, or the extent of development would have to be limited.

A definite advantage of going by way of the former CPR corridor as far west as realistic (i.e. Cleary) is that we can avoid a whole bunch of trenching and covering while not losing any ridership compared to a Richmond-Byron alignment through Rochester Field, since the stations will be in practically the same places. Indeed, there's an opportunity to get a station, or at least a tunnel, built into the lower levels of whatever building that will be built in the strip mall opposite the Continental.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

With the conversion there is an excellent opportunity to create a more vibrant, connected, pedestrian-friendly, cycling-friendly and intensification-ready community by covering the trench, and replacing it with a linear park, including segragated cycling lanes seperate from the pre-existing multi-use path.

Hear Hear! Paris is full of such linear parks on Boulevards, and they are well-used for recreation and transportation. Covering the trench would take the Mechanicsville-Hintonburg, WestWellie-ChamplainPark and two halves of Westboro (not to forget Dalhousie and Civic Hospital accross the OTrain trench) neighbourhoods whihc are currently separated by a noisy barrier that often goes long stretches without crossing points, and join them together with a meeting place. no snow and ice on the line seems like a nice side-benefit, too. As for "losing the views" there's not much view to be had from inside the Transitway trench, I don't think much would be lost. As for light, the cover could have skylights -- windows, glass pyramids, glass blocks, etc. One of the bike-ped tunnels under Wellington has such skylights.

[Richard Eade]

An interesting question: Why should the LRT be underground while auto-users enjoy the sights and sun of surface routes?

IF one must be below grade, I suppose the opposite condition is to put the cars through a tunnel and have the trains on the surface.

The answer must be in the ability of each mode to move a lot of people: A single lane of roadway is generally good for about 2,000 vehicles per hour (this number is relatively speed insensitive – remember the ‘2-second’ rule, if a car passes a point every two seconds, then 1,800 cars would pass that point in an hour; of course people generally skimp on the two seconds, and thus the 2,000 number), while a single rail line can handle probably 60 trains per hour. For 6-car trains, as is planned for Ottawa, the train could move about 72,000 people per hour (200 people per car X 6 cars X 60 trains per hour). To move the same number of people by car in one hour, would require eight traffic lanes per direction (based on 5 people per car X 2,000 cars per hour), assuming you could coax five people into car-pooling in each vehicle.

So really, it is a matter of economics; IF there is a need to grade separate, you can either build a huge tunnel for small vehicles or a small tunnel for large capacity vehicles.

This, of course leads to the suggestion of taking road-lanes away from private vehicles and converting them to rail because it would be a more efficient use of that space.

[lrt's friend]

This, of course leads to the suggestion of taking road-lanes away from private vehicles and converting them to rail because it would be a more efficient use of that space.

When you consider that our main problem is restricted to downtown where transit use is already high, you would think that this city is at the point that even the slightest restriction on private vehicle use (elimination of traffic on two lanes on one additional street) might be considered in the name of providing a lower cost solution. I find it odd that in fact what we are considering will actually allow the expansion of use of private vehicles downtown when we effectively shutdown our surface transit route.

I keep looking at other cities and particularly the Calgary success story and can't get over how their tunnel plans (two of them) include retention of the 7th Avenue transit mall even in the longer term. While Calgary is planning to eventually have three transit routes through downtown, Ottawa (with still higher ridership) is planning to open one and close another in the process. It seems short sighted. It also seems that Ottawa has set its sights very low as far as real improvements to transit even in the long-term.

While Calgary has one completely new rapid transit route under construction at the present time feeding directly into downtown, and three additional ones on the books including one busway, Ottawa has two, one from the Quebec side that does not feed directly into downtown and the other that will continue to be politically difficult to build because of the 2006 cancellation and opposition to the shutdown of the O-Train, which will rear its ugly head again in the future, I am sure.

[Cre47]

Ottawa city manager pulls tender for study on LRT's economic effects

By Neco Cockburn, Ottawa Citizen November 30, 2010

OTTAWA — City manager Kent Kirkpatrick has ordered staff to pull and review an online tender for a study on the economic impacts of light-rail transit in Ottawa, after a discretionary spending freeze was ordered last week.

In a request for proposal published Monday on the tendering website MERX, the city asked for proposals to provide "professional services for an assessment of the economic impacts of light-rail transit" as it moves ahead with its $2.1-billion project, which includes a downtown tunnel.

The study's purpose is "to determine and demonstrate the immediate and long-term economic impacts" of a light-rail system in Ottawa, the tender stated, and the proposed contract was to run from Jan. 4, 2011, to April 15, 2011.

But as soon as the posting was brought to the Kirkpatrick's attention, "he immediately requested that it and any others, with the exception of those related to the economic stimulus-fund projects, be removed from MERX to enable them to be reviewed," city spokesman Michael FitzPatrick wrote Tuesday in an e-mail statement.

Kirkpatrick has also instructed deputy city managers to screen all potential requests for proposals until the spending freeze is lifted. Kirkpatrick is then to review and approve them before they're posted on MERX, FitzPatrick said.

On Friday, Kirkpatrick announced that he and Mayor-elect Jim Watson had agreed that hiring and discretionary spending were to be frozen until the 2011 budget is approved.

The pair agreed "on the need to create as much financial flexibility as possible and achieve as much of a financial surplus to year end as we can," according to Kirkpatrick.

The city has also published a posting on MERX asking for information from light-rail vehicle manufacturers to help the city develop requirements that could be used when it actually procures trains for the project.

[Kitchissippi]

Does this count as a development?

• Video Link

[p_xavier]

It's so funny that Toronto will probably drop Transit City in favor of subways. It's like LRT gets no love anywhere.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When you consider that our main problem is restricted to downtown where transit use is already high, you would think that this city is at the point that even the slightest restriction on private vehicle use (elimination of traffic on two lanes on one additional street) might be considered in the name of providing a lower cost solution. I find it odd that in fact what we are considering will actually allow the expansion of use of private vehicles downtown when we effectively shutdown our surface transit route.

I don't think the buses are in contention with the cars that much. You could get rid of the bus traffic on Albert and Slater and there wouldn't be a huge increase in car traffic because they're not the bottleneck for cars. It's the bridges, the north-south streets, the peripheral connectors and the 417 onramps and offramps.

Anecdotally, when I'm on Slater and Albert for the morning and evening commutes I don't see car congestion. Lights are green for longer than they need to be to clear both the cars and the buses that wanted to pass through eastbound or westbound.

When LRT start service I would like to see the bus lanes disappear and be reclaimed as extended sidewalks. Allow sidewalk vendors and patios and such.