Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

Don't know much about Wood, but Maguire is fairly conservative, namely doesn't like any tax increases or taking on extra debt to fund projects. He has advocated some things I find pretty unrealistic like privatizing individual bus routes in an attempt to bring private sector competition into the bus system.

You can privatize individual routes, you just can't break up the fare system without causing a big sea change in how the system works. Totally possible, either a pay for performance for a fixed number of buses, or pay by the passenger.

As for commuter rail corridors, with Ottawa's system being pretty sleepy, could likely do a lot of good without much investment. O-Train for everyone!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

Don't know much about Wood, but Maguire is fairly conservative, namely doesn't like any tax increases or taking on extra debt to fund projects. He has advocated some things I find pretty unrealistic like privatizing individual bus routes in an attempt to bring private sector competition into the bus system.

To be somewhat fair Ottawa is funding a fair bit of the LRT project by borrowing. I don't think there is a really good and cheap transit alternative though, it is also harder to justify trying to change modes since the present LRT plan is so far underway. Once phase 1 is complete it is also a lot easier to build off the existing LRT system.

-----------------------

I don't think what Maguire is advocating, stick with the existing bus system with a few changes and add in some commuter rail on its own is a very viable idea. At minimum the LRT downtown was needed simply because there wasn't enough room to fit the number of buses needed for service during peak periods, even building a bus tunnel like Andy Haydon wanted probably would not have solved the capacity problem. While ending the system at Tunney's for the moment is okay, having an LRT line running only halfway through the core city (the area within the greenbelt) long term would be pretty awkward.

Commuter rail on its own might not be a bad idea, but the existing rail lines in Ottawa aren't very well placed for it. Barrhaven to the Via station is probably the most viable route. The line to Kanata though loops too far south to work well and there is no line to Orleans (and the existing branch we could build off of is again too far south to work well).

And Barrhaven-Tremblay would require more tracks and/or passing sidings added to avoid conflicts with VIA service... making it not really that cheap of a project.

I think everybody agrees that the "commuter rail" idea is completely useless in Ottawa as the core of a transit system. As a supplement to an large urban transit system (like what Phase 2 would bring us!) it works great, but without it its pointless.

Also, privatizing bus routes makes very little sense in a North American city where transit can't make a profit. In Asia & Europe where ridership is high enough that transit is profitable, many transit routes are indeed privately run, but that doesn't work in North America. Public money is still needed. And its been proven that privatizing operation doesn't really do much. York Region Transit near Toronto has privatized operation, and they're an insanely expensive service (they make OC Transpo look cheap), frequencies suck, and farebox recovery rate is low. The only time privatized operation in a North American context makes sense is when the transit agency is so small that having your own maintenance yard, fleet, etc. is just too much overhead (eg. Clarence-Rockland Transpo).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

As for commuter rail corridors, with Ottawa's system being pretty sleepy, could likely do a lot of good without much investment. O-Train for everyone!

Commuter rail is useless without LRT Phase 2. And Maguire wants to cancel LRT Phase 2 in favour of commute rail. If he wanted to do both, that would be great. But if we can only get one, then LRT has to win, no brainer. We've already lined up the funds for Phase 2, EA's are underway. Shovels can be in the ground as soon as Phase 1 opens. We can't pass up that opportunity.

Also as we have seen the past two days, the O-Train doesn't exactly work that well. It needs full double tracking and a modern signalling system for it to be a reliable route. That would mean at least $150M in upgrades, in addition to the $60M spent on this past round of updates, and the $80M (in 2001 dollars!) to build it in the first place. And that route is the easiest to put RT on. Any other O-Train style lines would require a lot more work. Commuter rail is NOT cheap.

[Aylmer]

For the O-Train to be extended along new lines, I think a couple of things need to happen:

- The O-Train needs to be double-tracked and electrified at least from Confederation to Bayview to insure low headways. This section becomes the trunk.
$$$: requires a new tunnel under Dow's Lake and a new Rideau River crossing, but the trench is wide enough to accommodate two tracks, except at stations.


- Tracks from Barrhaven to Confederation (12km) need to be triple-tracked (2 O-Train, 1 VIA).
$$$: Requires the widening of one overpass, a new Rideau River crossing and at least three new grade-separated crossings. The RoW is also relatively narrow around Riverside, making triple-tracking a little tricky, but by no means impossible.

- Tracks from the 417 (near Kanata) to Prince-of-Wales need to be double-tracked.
$: requires a new track but all overpasses but one are wide enough to accommodate two of them, the second track even exists along about 3km (25%) of the route and there are no topographical challenges.

- New tracks from the 417/railway junction to Kanata along the 417 (like the current Transitway buses) need to be built to Palladium (6km).
$$: requires pedestrian overpasses and new track, but no additional grade-separation or expropriation if build in the highway median à la Washington Metro.

- Build stops and passing tracks along exurban stretches (Tremblay-Alexandria, Kanata-Arnprior, Kanata-Bristol, Barrhaven-SmithsFalls-Perth
$: only requires the occasional passing track, the most basic of platforms, small Park-and-rides and new signalling.

It would require investment ― perhaps on the order of $300-500M ― but it would still be both cheaper and quicker than building LRT out to Barrhaven or Kanata while allowing for shorter trip times, equivalent frequency and better coverage, both regionally and in the city (Riverside and Nepean); once we get the O-Train to Kanata and Barrhaven, almost no additional infrastructure is required to run it to Carp, Pontiac, Arnprior, Richmond, Smith Falls and Perth. It definitely isn't free, but it's perhaps the best option available.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

For the O-Train to be extended along new lines, I think a couple of things need to happen:

- The O-Train needs to be double-tracked and electrified at least from Confederation to Bayview to insure low headways. This section becomes the trunk.
$$$: requires a new tunnel under Dow's Lake and a new Rideau River crossing, but the trench is wide enough to accommodate two tracks, except at stations.


- Tracks from Barrhaven to Confederation (12km) need to be triple-tracked (2 O-Train, 1 VIA).
$$$: Requires the widening of one overpass, a new Rideau River crossing and at least three new grade-separated crossings. The RoW is also relatively narrow around Riverside, making triple-tracking a little tricky, but by no means impossible.

- Tracks from the 417 (near Kanata) to Prince-of-Wales need to be double-tracked.
$: requires a new track but all overpasses but one are wide enough to accommodate two of them, the second track even exists along about 3km (25%) of the route and there are no topographical challenges.

- New tracks from the 417/railway junction to Kanata along the 417 (like the current Transitway buses) need to be built to Palladium (6km).
$$: requires pedestrian overpasses and new track, but no additional grade-separation or expropriation if build in the highway median à la Washington Metro.

- Build stops and passing tracks along exurban stretches (Tremblay-Alexandria, Kanata-Arnprior, Kanata-Bristol, Barrhaven-SmithsFalls-Perth
$: only requires the occasional passing track, the most basic of platforms, small Park-and-rides and new signalling.

It would require investment ― perhaps on the order of $300-500M ― but it would still be both cheaper and quicker than building LRT out to Barrhaven or Kanata while allowing for shorter trip times, equivalent frequency and better coverage, both regionally and in the city (Riverside and Nepean); once we get the O-Train to Kanata and Barrhaven, almost no additional infrastructure is required to run it to Carp, Pontiac, Arnprior, Richmond, Smith Falls and Perth. It definitely isn't free, but it's perhaps the best option available.

Viable, once LRT hits Bayshore & Baseline. Before that, that whole scheme is useless.

This is your famous S-Bahn Plan right? If I recall you extended LRT out to QCH to intersect with the Kanata line, and you kept LRT to Place D'Orleans while building a new commuter rail line in the south of Orleans.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is your famous S-Bahn Plan right?

Oh dear, have I become Franky?

Viable, once LRT hits Bayshore & Baseline. Before that, that whole scheme is useless.

Agreed: Phase 2 is not an option. Without it, Phase 1 is largely wasted. I just think that for 'Phase 3', I'd much rather see LRT along/under Rideau St. or (Gasp!) Bank St. than out along country roads to Kanata or Barrhaven; I don't think that it would be the best use of our limited funds.

Moreover, we cannot underestimate the power of well-done regional rail to structure urban development; existing towns and villages in Ottawa's commuter-shed, utterly dependant on automobiles, are subjected to the centrifugal forces of automobile sprawl. With attractive and reliable transit in the hearts (i.e.: not in a sea of parking) of towns like Arnprior, Richmond, Casselman, etc., we can bring density and economic vitality to these places, all while allowing much of the outward development to be replaced by infill and TOD.

Regional rail is an opportunity for us not only to help complete our urban transportation network, but also to completely rethink the way we do development in Ottawa which will put us on the forefront today all while insuring the competitively and functionality of our region in the years to come.

Is that too much to ask?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Agreed: Phase 2 is not an option. Without it, Phase 1 is largely wasted. I just think that for 'Phase 3', I'd much rather see LRT along/under Rideau St. or (Gasp!) Bank St. than out along country roads to Kanata or Barrhaven; I don't think that it would be the best use of our limited funds.

Moreover, we cannot underestimate the power of well-done regional rail to structure urban development; existing towns and villages in Ottawa's commuter-shed, utterly dependant on automobiles, are subjected to the centrifugal forces of automobile sprawl. With attractive and reliable transit in the hearts (i.e.: not in a sea of parking) of towns like Arnprior, Richmond, Casselman, etc., we can bring density and economic vitality to these places, all while allowing much of the outward development to be replaced by infill and TOD.

Regional rail is an opportunity for us not only to help complete our urban transportation network, but also to completely rethink the way we do development in Ottawa which will put us on the forefront today all while insuring the competitively and functionality of our region in the years to come.

Is that too much to ask?

Agree with every word. It would be great for our villages to go back to being actual villages instead of suburbs.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Oh dear, have I become Franky?



Agreed: Phase 2 is not an option. Without it, Phase 1 is largely wasted. I just think that for 'Phase 3', I'd much rather see LRT along/under Rideau St. or (Gasp!) Bank St. than out along country roads to Kanata or Barrhaven; I don't think that it would be the best use of our limited funds.

Moreover, we cannot underestimate the power of well-done regional rail to structure urban development; existing towns and villages in Ottawa's commuter-shed, utterly dependant on automobiles, are subjected to the centrifugal forces of automobile sprawl. With attractive and reliable transit in the hearts (i.e.: not in a sea of parking) of towns like Arnprior, Richmond, Casselman, etc., we can bring density and economic vitality to these places, all while allowing much of the outward development to be replaced by infill and TOD.

Regional rail is an opportunity for us not only to help complete our urban transportation network, but also to completely rethink the way we do development in Ottawa which will put us on the forefront today all while insuring the competitively and functionality of our region in the years to come.

Is that too much to ask?

This.

[DarkArconio]

I agree that phase 2 is important, but let's all remember that to fund the project, we'll be taking on an amount of debt such that there won't be any budget left for major transit projects until 2040 or later. So while it's far to say that phase 2 should be a higher priority over commuter rail, they're also essentially mutually exclusive over the next few decades. And surely there will be ever larger demands for other infrastructure projects like another interprovincial bridge that would compete for resources.

[Aylmer]

I think a better way of looking at it is 'How much does it cost not to do [x]?'. The costs in congestion, new roads and extensive public infrastructure to accommodate low-density Greenfield development are akin to death by a thousand cuts.

But holistic arguments are generally hard to make when asking for funding.

So, we should instead look at using one of the many value capture schemes available and in use in different parts of the world. The value generated by transit is enormous and if we can capture and dedicate those increases towards transit, we can at least partially fund operation and perhaps even help fund its construction.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

I agree that phase 2 is important, but let's all remember that to fund the project, we'll be taking on an amount of debt such that there won't be any budget left for major transit projects until 2040 or later. So while it's far to say that phase 2 should be a higher priority over commuter rail, they're also essentially mutually exclusive over the next few decades. And surely there will be ever larger demands for other infrastructure projects like another interprovincial bridge that would compete for resources.

Luckily, Interprovincial bridges are not the City's jurisdiction. It would be split FEDS/QC/ON.

Expanding the ORT as far as possible ASAP makes sense because the cost of building transit will keep going up while faster than our resources. The only other major project likely to be funded partly by the City is the King Ed's tunnel, which will likely cost around 1.2 billion split three ways between FEDS/ON/OT.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think a better way of looking at it is 'How much does it cost not to do [x]?'. The costs in congestion, new roads and extensive public infrastructure to accommodate low-density Greenfield development are akin to death by a thousand cuts.

I'm not sure Phase 2 has much impact. Phase 1 has clear benefits: get more people in an out of downtown faster, get a lot of buses off of downtown streets and it is replacing infrastructure at the bursting point. Most of Phase 2 is replacing existing BRT infrastructure that is nowhere near capacity, nowhere near the end of its lifecycle and most of the areas being served by Phase 2 were developed decades ago (so it is not going to change any development patterns beyond the odd infill project). Moreover, in suburban areas, LRT is likely to be slower than the existing BRT service (lower top speed, inability to skip stations, inability to slow down to check for passengers and then keep going, no ability to pass slower vehicles, more stops). Someone coming from Kanata who under Phase 1 gets an express bus all the way to Tunney's or a 96 that skips a number of stops will instead transfer at Bayshore and then make every single stop all the way downtown.

Phase 2 is good politics: the Mayor gets to announce new transit in every direction, but I'm not sure if the value for money is there or if it is the best way to suck up Ottawa's infrastructure budget for decades to come.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moreover, in suburban areas, LRT is likely to be slower than the existing BRT service (lower top speed, inability to skip stations, inability to slow down to check for passengers and then keep going, no ability to pass slower vehicles, more stops).

I'm not so sure about that. The Phase 2 LRT is still grade/ROW separated so it will run outside of any prevailing traffic conditions. There's no need to pass slower vehicles, since there will not be any in the path.

We can debate whether or not the Phase 2 LRT segments will be faster or slower than the existing BRT routes, but the LRT will be more predictable than the current BRT - No bunching along the route, and it should operate at a reasonably reliable schedule. Those advantages should at least negate any speed difference that might exist. Yes, you will not skip stations, but overall, the ride along the LRT system is intended to be reliable and consistent from a scheduling standpoint.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

I agree that phase 2 is important, but let's all remember that to fund the project, we'll be taking on an amount of debt such that there won't be any budget left for major transit projects until 2040 or later. So while it's far to say that phase 2 should be a higher priority over commuter rail, they're also essentially mutually exclusive over the next few decades. And surely there will be ever larger demands for other infrastructure projects like another interprovincial bridge that would compete for resources.

Til 2031, not 2040. The TMP is based on affordability to 2031, Phase 2 front ends that 17 year period with spending 2018-2023 rather than spreading it out to 2031. Assuming the 5 year renewal period continues for the OP and TMP, in 2023 onward we will be required as a municipality to start planning post 2031, and thats when major new spending on transit can become "affordable" again based on current predictions.

Of course if TOD/infill goes better than planned, or the city grows faster than predicted, this could all happen faster.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

The line to Kanata though loops too far south to work well...

Humour us. I bet it would work weller in practice than it does on paper.

[McC]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Of course if TOD/infill goes better than planned, or the city grows faster than predicted, this could all happen faster.

Or if we decide to start paying some more taxes to pay for the things we want; I know it's heresy, but even gubment-hating Ahmuhrricans pay sales taxes for subways. We used to pay 15% in this province, and the economy was doing just fine at the time! we could do it again, and all of our wildest (LRT) dream could come true.

If by "wildest dreams" you mean extensions to Orleans, Barrhaven and Kanata.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by mcc

or if we decide to start paying some more taxes to pay for the things we want; i know it's heresy, but even gubment-hating ahmuhrricans pay sales taxes for subways. We used to pay 15% in this province, and the economy was doing just fine at the time! We could do it again, and all of our wildest (lrt) dream could come true.

If by "wildest dreams" you mean extensions to orleans, barrhaven and kanata.

wild wild wild

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moreover, in suburban areas, LRT is likely to be slower than the existing BRT service (lower top speed, inability to skip stations, inability to slow down to check for passengers and then keep going, no ability to pass slower vehicles, more stops).

No, LRT will be faster than the existing BRT even on true Transitway segments.
1) It's top speed is HIGHER. The top speed between stations on the LRT will be 110km/h, whereas on the Transitway its 90km/h.
2) LRT accelerates faster than buses do. Even though the LRT vehicles are a hell of a lot bigger, LRT is electric, and electric vehicles always accelerate way faster. (Ever been in a Tesla? They go 0 to 60 in about five seconds).
3) LRT loads a lot faster so dwell times at stations are much shorter. (To be fair, much of this benefit could be achieved with proof of payment boarding on the Transitway).
4) This one's not about speed per se, but reliability. Your LRT train will always take the same amount of time each day. Your commute time will come within a minute of the average 99% of the time. The current Transitway is all over the map and can be slowed down dramatically by accidents or bad weather. LRT is weatherproof. Even if its the middle of a huge blizzard LRT will have normal operation at full speeds.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by McC

Or if we decide to start paying some more taxes to pay for the things we want.

NO! Cut all taxes to -5% and BUILD A SUBWAY TO MANOTICK!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

I agree that phase 2 is important, but let's all remember that to fund the project, we'll be taking on an amount of debt such that there won't be any budget left for major transit projects until 2040 or later. So while it's far to say that phase 2 should be a higher priority over commuter rail, they're also essentially mutually exclusive over the next few decades. And surely there will be ever larger demands for other infrastructure projects like another interprovincial bridge that would compete for resources.

If we have to choose between Phase 2 & commuter rail, then Phase 2 all the way. Commuter rail is useless without Phase 2 as has been stated numerous times in this thread by myself and others.

It should be noted that even with Phase 2's expense, the city still has about $600M left over for additional transit projects.

The city's accounting already accounts for other infrastructure items. It gives specific debt capacity to specific areas. Maxing out transit debt has no bearing on debt capacity for bridges or arenas or whatever, they're accounted for separately.