Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[J.OT13]

Here's something the city doesn’t seem to realize about the N/S questions about direct to downtown or transfer at Bayview; capacity doesn’t matter, we need just as much in either case. If N/S has to transfer, you need more trains on E/W.

If the system is fully grade separated (and maybe by then automated) you can just as easily have N/S connect to the Confederation Line to go downtown.

Furthermore, if you don't, you will;

a. lose ridership; who wants to transfer from bus (or park and ride) to train and then again to train for the last kilometer and a half?

b. if I have been on a flight for whatever hours, I don't want to drag my luggage on a train, and then freeze/ stand in the rain/ stand in 40 degree weather to catch another train. I also don't want to walk on busy/slippery sidewalks (if the N/S train runs on city streets downtown) to my hotel.

c. if N/S does not have a direct service to downtown, Bayview will be over capacity with people from Bayview, riders from N/S and possibly STO riders from Gatineau crammed on one platform. With direct service, N/S stay in their trains and Gatineau/Bayview riders will have 2 platform options

d. if N/S has to transfer at Bayview, it will increase operational cost (and capital cost) by requirering more trains. Let me explain; if N/S connects to Confederation for a direct downtown service, you could have, say 6 trains N/S and 20 trains E/W. But if transfer is required, then you still need 6 trains N/S but you now need 26 trains E/W that will be running at lower capacity before Bayview.

And so I believe that the extra investment for a direct N/S to downtown connection is required, although it will be more difficult with the lower capacity (and the whole 98 m trains on 120 meter platforms!?) suggested by this design team. A solution could be putting the Citadis 98 meter trains into service on the N/S and buying new 120 meter trains, 4 x 30 meter cars, (and lengthening the E/W platforms) for the Confederation line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

rakerman did Hurdman
http://manifestomultilinko2.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/hurdman-before-and-after/

Other than the lack of a roof, the new design is better.

Maybe we could do that, a Confederation line thread with a pole for each station, which design was better.

[Harley613]

I have been trying to figure out where the temporary re-routing will go during the transition in areas that are converting from BRT to LRT.

I assume they can't run side by side during construction?

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I have been trying to figure out where the temporary re-routing will go during the transition in areas that are converting from BRT to LRT.

I assume they can't run side by side during construction?

It's not really an issue for the downtown. They will have transit-only lanes in (I think) peak direction only on Scott Street, same on Nicholas, and also on the widened 417 (part of the reason the widening is tied with this project).

[McC]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here's something the city doesn’t seem to realize about the N/S questions about direct to downtown or transfer at Bayview;

I'm still *hoping* that sanity will prevail eventually, and Bayshore-SouthKeys-Airport (i.e. the 97) will also be converted to RT, interlined in the tunnel. It'll be a less expensive project than redoing NSLRT, and would be 'relatively' easy to do and less disruptive once the O-Train's capacity is doubled (and Walkley and Gladstone Stations are added already!). It also leaves the O-Train free for easy extensions north to Terraces and South to a Leitrim Park and Ride. Yes it's less than ideal for users, yes its less good than NSLRT would have been for those users; but an extended O-Train with doubled frequency plus the Blair-Baseline (Confederation-"B"?) Line and an Airport-Bayshore (Confederation-"A"?) Line would be a pretty decent core rapid transit network to build out from, and to complement with trams, hub-spoke bus priority services etc.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

It's not really an issue for the downtown. They will have transit-only lanes in (I think) peak direction only on Scott Street, same on Nicholas, and also on the widened 417 (part of the reason the widening is tied with this project).

If they do transit on Nicholas then how will they hit Lees station?

[Beedok]

So, catch the O-Train at Confederation, then transfer to the Confederation to Train.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here's something the city doesn’t seem to realize about the N/S questions about direct to downtown or transfer at Bayview; capacity doesn’t matter, we need just as much in either case. If N/S has to transfer, you need more trains on E/W.

Yes and no. The N-S line as designed was limited to what were then 2-car trains (60 m), and initially just 1-car trains; assuming that any future N-S line uses the same vehicles as the Confederation Line, we would be looking at 1-car/49 m trains running on it. The Confederation Line of course will be using 98 m trains, and ultimately ~120 m trains.

So while the total number of trains running through downtown would be the same whether there is interlining or transferring, the capacity running through downtown would in fact be greater with transferring since all trains would be full length trains.

You might ask why not redesign the N-S line for longer trains? I'd have to look through the N-S LRT EA again to see if that is possible in Riverside South (the CDP may not have sufficient space at all stations for longer platforms), but even if it is it would be wasteful of train capacity.

If the system is fully grade separated (and maybe by then automated) you can just as easily have N/S connect to the Confederation Line to go downtown.

Furthermore, if you don't, you will;

a. lose ridership; who wants to transfer from bus (or park and ride) to train and then again to train for the last kilometer and a half?

People do that with the O-Train today and anyone who works in Hull also does something like that at LeBreton. A few people even take a bus to the O-Train at Greenboro, take the O-Train to Bayview, another bus to LeBreton and finally a bus to Hull (though if you're lucky the last two can be combined in the #105, at least the last time I checked).

b. if I have been on a flight for whatever hours, I don't want to drag my luggage on a train, and then freeze/ stand in the rain/ stand in 40 degree weather to catch another train. I also don't want to walk on busy/slippery sidewalks (if the N/S train runs on city streets downtown) to my hotel.

At this point in time, we have no reason to believe or suspect that the N-S line will run on city streets downtown. The Peer Review Panel suggested that the Carling line run on the surface downtown, but that suggestion was never incorporated into the TMP.

But, frankly, unless your hotel happens to have direct access to a tunnel station, that is going to be something you would have to face anyway.

c. if N/S does not have a direct service to downtown, Bayview will be over capacity with people from Bayview, riders from N/S and possibly STO riders from Gatineau crammed on one platform. With direct service, N/S stay in their trains and Gatineau/Bayview riders will have 2 platform options

Arguably that's not a terribly efficient arrangement having passengers having to decide which platform is going to be better.

The STO thing is an entire problem in and of itself because the STO has foolishly decided to build a busway rather than a light railway, creating the prospect of sequential transfers in short succession.

In addition, the possibility of overloading the west end versus the east end is all too possible if the N-S line from Riverside South uses the O-Train corridor rather than the Southeast Transitway corridor.

d. if N/S has to transfer at Bayview, it will increase operational cost (and capital cost) by requirering more trains. Let me explain; if N/S connects to Confederation for a direct downtown service, you could have, say 6 trains N/S and 20 trains E/W. But if transfer is required, then you still need 6 trains N/S but you now need 26 trains E/W that will be running at lower capacity before Bayview.

But as I wrote above, you're also occupying 6 of the tunnel slots with shorter trains.

And so I believe that the extra investment for a direct N/S to downtown connection is required, although it will be more difficult with the lower capacity (and the whole 98 m trains on 120 meter platforms!?) suggested by this design team. A solution could be putting the Citadis 98 meter trains into service on the N/S and buying new 120 meter trains, 4 x 30 meter cars, (and lengthening the E/W platforms) for the Confederation line.

The sorry truth of the matter is that the City has not really given much deep thought to how it is going to deal with a number of transit issues:

-Gatineau/STO - does everyone come in on the west side via Prince of Wales/Chaudière/Portage or do we attempt to balance Aylmer and Hull on one side (the west) with Gatineau on the east (say Macdonald-Cartier and/or the new bridge)

-load balancing downtown - as previous, but also what to do with traffic from Riverside South: via O-Train or via the Southeast Transitway; also how to connect a converted SE Twy into the Confederation Line at Hurdman

-serving outlying suburbs - via light rail, O-Train, busway (trunk vs express bus); dealing with transfers, where, nature of routes in the suburbs, etc

-Carling line - purpose, does it go downtown? if so, how? will it go on the surface?

-Rockcliffe base - how to serve with rapid transit, integration with other components of the network


Those are some of the basic questions on a rapid transit network that the City has never really given much thought about.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Harley613

If they do transit on Nicholas then how will they hit Lees station?

And Train, and Cyrville...

If most of the buses coming from the East get diverted onto the Queensway & Nicholas that means that some existing stations will see a sgnificant reduction in service.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

And Train, and Cyrville...

If most of the buses coming from the East get diverted onto the Queensway & Nicholas that means that some existing stations will see a sgnificant reduction in service.

For Lees, is it possible that there would be some kind of stop to the side of the existing 417 bridge over the Transitway, kind of like Queensway in the west? Not sure how much infrastructure that would require.

Train could be reasonably served if buses divert off at Riverside and follow Tremblay. Maybe they don't go back on until St. Laurent? Even that is a bit of a detour off the highway.

Cyrville seems basically impossible to serve without a major diversion.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by phil235

For Lees, is it possible that there would be some kind of stop to the side of the existing 417 bridge over the Transitway, kind of like Queensway in the west? Not sure how much infrastructure that would require.

Train could be reasonably served if buses divert off at Riverside and follow Tremblay. Maybe they don't go back on until St. Laurent? Even that is a bit of a detour off the highway.

Cyrville seems basically impossible to serve without a major diversion.

And will the transitway & express routes exit the Queensway to serve Blair, St-Laurent & Hurdman for riders that are transfering to a non downtown route?

The west end will have it easier with the detours since Scott/Albert runs parrallel to the Transitway.

[Dado]

... And now it begins to become evident that, despite the basic geometry of the Transitway having been built to accommodate a conversion to rail, no one at the time of the Transitway's design and building gave much thought to how a conversion to rail might actually be done without causing a whole slew of disruption.

Worse still, we are still designing new bus transitways without thinking about how they will eventually be converted to rail.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Walkley Road, the station that was cancelled with the N-S project. And what is worse, the planned neighbouring development (hotel and condo) is proceeding without being integrated with the station. What a waste!

True, dat.

But you don't *need* a walkley station to get downtown.

I agree, though, there oughta be one. Also Gladstone. Also Hull.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dado

I'll hazard a guess based on the fact that what we're going to be using is 100% low floor that we'd be using the Alstom Citadis 302, used on the Paris T2 tramway:

ZOMG! Child-killing, property-value destroying overhead wires!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dado

Those are some of the basic questions on a rapid transit network that the City has never really given much thought about.

They started to think about them, then decided that thinking was too hard, so they stopped.

Welcome to Ottawa.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Dado

... And now it begins to become evident that, despite the basic geometry of the Transitway having been built to accommodate a conversion to rail, no one at the time of the Transitway's design and building gave much thought to how a conversion to rail might actually be done without causing a whole slew of disruption.

Worse still, we are still designing new bus transitways without thinking about how they will eventually be converted to rail.

This is one of the reasons I would have preferred that a seperate E-W LRT/subway line be built BEFORE converting the transitway.

The downside of the current plan is that during construction, bus service in the east end may get worse for a couple years before it is improved by a functionning LRT.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

True, dat.

But you don't *need* a walkley station to get downtown.

I agree, though, there oughta be one. Also Gladstone. Also Hull.

Skipping Wakley & Gladstone were big mistakes from the get go which the city still isn't intent on rectifying.

[JM1]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Skipping Wakley & Gladstone were big mistakes from the get go which the city still isn't intent on rectifying.

What I find to be the biggest oversight is the failure to create a single N-S line where it is most needed, under Bank Street.

Sure we are developing like crazy West of Preston and will develop at Bayview, but let's face it, apart from Confederation, there is not much more development possibility until you get to South Keys.

Along Bank Street, you already have a need. Transit should go where it is needed, not where development might be.

But if you keep the O-Train, I agree that you need stops at Walkley and Gladstone. The problem with this area is that it does not have good E-W road connections to the core (Carling is a major road that effectively ends in a T-junction at Bronson and Gladstone, which does go through, is slow to drive across (because of intersections)).

[JM1]

The renovation of Rideau street was an opportunity to make a cut and cover tunnel underneath for a future LRT. Missed opportunity. Same goes for the digging up of Kind Edward several years ago.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by JM1

Transit should go where it is needed, not where development might be.

That just makes too much sense.