HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #701  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 5:06 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
So something like this?


I like it. A lot, actually.

Would likely require some revisions to subdivision plans to keep a clear ROW from the airport to RS TC.
I like that plan a lot more. The best routing I can think of is a tunnel under the runways then along the Limebank Road ROW (plenty of room exists) with room for a southern extension. The Southwest Transitway (Barrhaven) would be Phase 3 of the Confederation Line.

Transitways would be heavily used for non-downtown options. The section from Heron to South Keys might end up pared back or changed if the Bank Street subway is built (might be time to look at a BRT corridor along Hunt Club East?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #702  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 5:09 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_G View Post
Looks like the current plan (according to the new Citizen article) is to have the new expanded service begin Feb 21st barring any unforseen issues. Overnight “systems acceptance testing” will begin this Sunday with the new trains. Shutdown for the switchover will start Feb 14th.
At least we aren't seeing any further delays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #703  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 5:20 PM
Capital Shaun Capital Shaun is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
In my opinion, the two spur solution is not worth pursuing so long as the Trillium Line trunk north of South Keys is not double tracked. Without double tracking that segment, two spurs requires the complicated shuttling arrangement that has been proposed, or very low frequencies. What I'm saying is that, so long as the money is not available to double track the Trillium trunk, we should pick one spur or the other.
I completely agree with you on this point.

If I were to pick only one spur, I'd pick the airport first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #704  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 5:21 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
In that hypothetical setup, after Phase 2 from the Riverside South (and SE Barrhaven) stations other than at RS Centre, from South Keys and from Barrhaven Centre to the following key business areas:

Downtown Ottawa - 1 transfer from Riverside South (at Hurdman), 1 transfer from South Keys (at Hurdman, can also take Route 1 but slower), 1 transfer from Barrhaven (either Hurdman or Baseline)
Hull - 2 transfers from Riverside South (at RS Centre and Bayview), 1 transfer from South Keys (at Bayview), 2 transfers from Barrhaven (multiple options)
Tunney's Pasture - 2 transfers from Riverside South (at RS Centre and Bayview or Barrhaven Centre and Baseline), 1 transfer from South Keys (at Bayview), 1 transfer from Barrhaven (at Baseline)
Carleton University - 1 transfer from Riverside South (at RS Centre), direct from South Keys, 1 transfer from Barrhaven (at RS Centre or at Baseline to #111)
Algonquin College - 1 transfer from Riverside South (at Barrhaven Centre), 1 transfer from South Keys (at Billings Bridge to #118), direct from Barrhaven
Kanata North - 3 transfers from Riverside South (various options), 2 transfers from South Keys (at Bayview and Bayshore to #93), 3 transfers from Barrhaven Centre (at Baseline, Lincoln Fields and Bayshore to #93)

Direct service would only exist for a small number of movements in that phase (but many more in Phase 3), but most movements require only one transfer. Kanata North is the glaring exception - a BRT type route from Barrhaven to Kanata around the southwest corner (at least during peak periods) is critically needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #705  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 7:23 PM
Catenary Catenary is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Bad news, I had a restless night and lots of time to think.
Has anybody considered how these trains will operate? Where they have to be to make it work?

In my restlessness, it can only work one way as follows: There will be 8 trains. When 1 is at Bayview, 2 will be at the bypass track at Carleton. This is where it gets difficult. In order to make it work, there will have to be 3 trains at South Keys. One through train going north, one through train going south and one shuttle train going south. The two remaining trains will be at the airport and Bowesville. The only way South Keys can operate with the shuttle model is to have the two southbound trains back to back on the passing siding. This will allow the southbound trains to leave in tandem. But it seemed to me that the South Keys station platform was not going to be extended long enough to allow for two trains back to back, or are we going to make this even more complicated by making the southbound through train wait until the shuttle leaves? But that doesn't make sense if we want to facilitate transfers onto the shuttle train. So, have the planners screwed up by saying that the South Keys station platform will located only south of the pedestrian walkway. I think so.

Also think about this. The report suggests 8 minute frequency but the planner admitted that this might extend to 10 minute frequency. Is that even doable? Our new service model starting in February runs 4 trains between Greenboro and Bayview. As mentioned previously, we will be adding stations and additional stops at Walkley and Gladstone as part of the new proposal and each stop adds travel time. But we are also effectively adding another station. Under the new proposal, 4 trains will be running between South Keys and Bayview instead of Greenboro and Bayview adding another stop and more distance. Inevitably, this will take even more time than what will happen starting next month. So what will be the real possible frequency? It seems to me that we are drifting back towards the same service frequency that we have today. Are we really creating that much extra capacity to allow for growth in the future? This is of course the limitations of using a single track line.
I've thought about this a fair bit as well. I made a table to play with different options based on expanding the current (upcoming) service pattern. For simplicities sake, I set the trains on a 10 minute schedule in steps of 2.5 minutes, though an 8 minute schedule would be the same with steps of 2 minutes. I came to many of the same conclusions you did, though the table shows some interesting points.



The table makes it seem that trains could pull into Bowesville and immediately return. This may be possible with 10 minute timings, but train crews struggled to run one train back and forth between Greenboro and Carleton in fall 2013. The same is true for the Airport spur shuttle, where one train will always be waiting at the airport, and would only depart as soon as the next one pulled in. If there was time for the crew to switch ends, only one train would be needed.

With regards to South Keys, it appears that three platforms would be needed, or the spur line train could be staggered to operate two steps off of the rest of the trains.

Last edited by Catenary; Jan 16, 2015 at 2:43 AM. Reason: Corrected Image
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 7:24 PM
Radster Radster is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_G View Post
Looks like the current plan (according to the new Citizen article) is to have the new expanded service begin Feb 21st barring any unforseen issues. Overnight “systems acceptance testing” will begin this Sunday with the new trains. Shutdown for the switchover will start Feb 14th.
Awesome, I will walk down Gladstone from my place one night at about midnight to check out the new trains!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #707  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 7:56 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catenary View Post
I've thought about this a fair bit as well. I made a table to play with different options based on expanding the current (upcoming) service pattern. For simplicities sake, I set the trains on a 10 minute schedule in steps of 2.5 minutes, though an 8 minute schedule would be the same with steps of 2 minutes. I came to many of the same conclusions you did, though the table shows some interesting points.



The table makes it seem that trains could pull into Bowesville and immediately return. This may be possible with 10 minute timings, but train crews struggled to run one train back and forth between Greenboro and Carleton in fall 2013. The same is true for the Airport spur shuttle, where one train will always be waiting at the airport, and would only depart as soon as the next one pulled in. If there was time for the crew to switch ends, only one train would be needed.

With regards to South Keys, it appears that three platforms would be needed, or the spur line train could be staggered to operate two steps off of the rest of the trains.
Your chart has me a little confused. The very first line has train 6 departing South Keys and at Bowesville at the same time or am I not following what you are doing?

I am also not sure how you accomplish this model with 7 trains. It seems that your chart has the same train on both branches in the same run.

Operationally, wouldn't it be more efficient to have trains pass each other along the line rather than waiting until the next train arrives at the terminus before departing? It seems that it would be a waste of limited train resources waiting a full 10 minutes at either the airport or Bowesville.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #708  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 9:20 PM
silvergate's Avatar
silvergate silvergate is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The section from Heron to South Keys might end up pared back or changed if the Bank Street subway is built (might be time to look at a BRT corridor along Hunt Club East?)
According to the government the most expensive BRT construction costs about 22 million/km.
I did some maths and found that if on average it cost like 12 million$/km to build BRT for just 1.5 billion$ we could put BRT on Innes-Industrial, Montreal, St. Laurent, Russell-Smyth, Riverside, Baseline, Walkley/Heron, Merivale, Carling, Richmond from Bell's Corners to Carling, Hazeldean -Robertson-Baseline. That would be 128 km of rapid transit for almost the same cost of the confederation line. Assuming stations and traffic signalling upgrades could cost another billion, that would be around 2.5 billion$ to connect the whole city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #709  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 9:31 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergate View Post
According to the government the most expensive BRT construction costs about 22 million/km.
I did some maths and found that if on average it cost like 12 million$/km to build BRT for just 1.5 billion$ we could put BRT on Innes-Industrial, Montreal, St. Laurent, Russell-Smyth, Riverside, Baseline, Walkley/Heron, Merivale, Carling, Richmond from Bell's Corners to Carling, Hazeldean -Robertson-Baseline. That would be 128 km of rapid transit for almost the same cost of the confederation line. Assuming stations and traffic signalling upgrades could cost another billion, that would be around 2.5 billion$ to connect the whole city.
The horrors of suggesting something like that.

Trains >>>>>>>>>> ++++++ >>>>> BRT

Just kidding!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #710  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:00 AM
Mikeed Mikeed is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 377
I go against the grain here. Having moved to Ottawa in 2011, I see BRT as a model for other cities. Yes, capacity is maxed out through the downtown and the Confederation line is a fantastic way to move forward as it will significantly lower operating costs, move more people along the trunk line and free up scarce resource ($$$) for expanded services elsewhere.

A city like Barrie should seriously consider planning for BRT in it's long term plans following the Ottawa model, contrary to vocal opinions here that BRT was an expensive folly.

I'm still mulling over the Trillium Line conundrum:

I'd like to point out that I'm wholly in favour of using the Prince of Wales bridge as an STO transitway to Bayview and the conversion of Bayview into an interprovincial transit hub in the long term. This will further integrate mobility between the twin cities and remove STO busses from Wellington and Rideau!

My gut is telling that a solution that works for everyone with the Trillium line is not possible for a number of reasons- one being scarce resources ($$$) for capital projects looking into the future, that means into the mid century in Ottawa (2040s). So if we're picking something, expanding the Trillium line to Riverside South MUST be the top priority as we have the opportunity here to capitalize on the choice of rolling stock- LRT- while NOT making the same mistakes of the past (cancelling the Chiarelli plan) and build a suburb that is revolves around a metro line. According to the city planning department the majority of all growth in Ottawa will occur outside the greenbelt in the suburbs and the majority of that growth will occur in the Riverside South and Leitrim areas. For example: the Official Plan (2003) directs that Leitrim development area will accommodate 5500 households by 2021. (I’m looking at the imminent future). And the ultimate plan calls for 15,000 residents- hardly just trees.

That being said, with the Trillium Line servicing the Riverside South / Leitrim growth areas, and feeding into Bayview, this has the potential to scuttle the use of Bayview as an interprovincial transit hub, as the network will be out of balance with full trains coming in from the West, with more transfers from the growth areas of the South leaving no capacity for interprovincial transfers, killing the the top priority of an interprovincial transit hub. I recall some planning documents warning of this possibility. Making Bayview the interprovincial transit hub is a vital necessity, I my opinion, when looking at the grand scale. This planning should already be finalized and incorporated into the design of the Bayview station but this is a failure of politics and jurisdiction in Ottawa. Where’s that interprovincial transit plan NCC?

This leads me to consider that expanding the S.E Transitway/Trillium Line as indicated the map above is the best plan for the network as a whole. For a number of reasons. One being that it balances the network better, allows for the use of Bayview as an interprovincial transit hub (keep in mind that Tunney’s is the 2nd largest employment node in the NCR), and the strengths of BRT work well for suburbs as local busses can wind through the streets and then merge onto the transitway to head directly to the transfer point at Hurdman. This capitalizes on the infrastructure already in place- the S.E transitway.

Another thing to consider:
Ontario was the 1st jurisdiction to phase out coal power generation in the world. This is a massive accomplishment that is not considered enough. If the global community is to seriously tackle climate change the single greatest effort needs to be the global phase out of coal power generation. We focus too much on things like oil sands and car emissions that are a drop in the bucket compared to coal power generation. Ontario gets 50% its base load from Nukes, 20% from Hydro, 16% from natural gas, and currently at the time of this writing 11% from wind which didn't even exist 8 years ago, in 2007. That’s 80% from zero emissions. And for the Ottawa area almost all of our power comes from hydro generation along the Ottawa & Madawaska rivers.

Why I’m talking about this? Well, in the next 10-15 years as the electric Confederation Line comes online, and Bombardier(for example and others) work on bringing induction charging of electric vehicles to market, we could easily have the totality of our public transit running on zero emissions, by 2030. That’s 30-40% of the mobility of the city moving via zero emissions. And transitways are the perfect location to install inductive charging pads.

So that wall of text are my musings on the subject.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #711  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:41 AM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergate View Post
According to the government the most expensive BRT construction costs about 22 million/km.
I did some maths and found that if on average it cost like 12 million$/km to build BRT for just 1.5 billion$ we could put BRT on Innes-Industrial, Montreal, St. Laurent, Russell-Smyth, Riverside, Baseline, Walkley/Heron, Merivale, Carling, Richmond from Bell's Corners to Carling, Hazeldean -Robertson-Baseline. That would be 128 km of rapid transit for almost the same cost of the confederation line. Assuming stations and traffic signalling upgrades could cost another billion, that would be around 2.5 billion$ to connect the whole city.
You're only looking at building a system, not operating it. At a certain volume LRT's higher infrastructure cost will be offset by the far lower per passenger cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #712  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:45 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Mikeed, I think all but the most die-hard railfans on here agree that BRT works wonders for corridors/cities where demand is right for it. The Transitway is regarded as a folly not necessarily because it was really bad (when it was built it was really good) but because the city outgrew it, which anyone looking forward from the 1960s/1970s should have been able to foresee.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #713  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:54 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
As for BRT costs....

Of the 3 BRT costs being pursued by Ottawa in the next 10 years the costs given in the 2013 TMP are:

-Bayshore-Moodie Transitway: $76M for 2.7km ($28M/km)
-March Road Transitway: $110M for 3.5km ($31M/km)
-Baseline Transitway: $131M for 7.0km ($19M/km)

Not too sure why the Baseline Transitway is cheaper, economies of scale perhaps?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #714  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 1:50 AM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
As for BRT costs....

Of the 3 BRT costs being pursued by Ottawa in the next 10 years the costs given in the 2013 TMP are:

-Bayshore-Moodie Transitway: $76M for 2.7km ($28M/km)
-March Road Transitway: $110M for 3.5km ($31M/km)
-Baseline Transitway: $131M for 7.0km ($19M/km)

Not too sure why the Baseline Transitway is cheaper, economies of scale perhaps?
Probably because there is no grade separation on the Baseline Transitway; it is to be a median BRT.

FYI, there was also, a late revision in the TMP to truncate the March Road Transitway to Corkstown Road and remove the planned grade separation closer to the 417. This frees up the funds to construct the Kanata Transitway from Eagleson to Terry Fox, parallel to and north of the 417, which will be a 4th BRT project. This facility should also have a low cost/km because the required underpass at Kanata Ave was built over 10 years ago (forward planning at work!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #715  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 2:31 AM
Mikeed Mikeed is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Mikeed, I think all but the most die-hard railfans on here agree that BRT works wonders for corridors/cities where demand is right for it. The Transitway is regarded as a folly not necessarily because it was really bad (when it was built it was really good) but because the city outgrew it, anyone looking forward from the 1960s/1970s should have been able to foresee.
And my point is the city out growing the transitway does not make it a folly. Consider the numerous "we should have just built LRT from the start", "Oil rich Edmonton and Calgary built electric LRTs when Ottawa uses diesel BRT and the national energy program to shuffle bureaucrats around, ironic" comments.

My point is Ottawa has an exportable model and there are vocal members who would contest that.

>anyone looking forward from the 1960s/1970s should have been able to foresee.

And the plan and what I would call the unpoliticized timeline called for a BRT tunnel being constructed in the early 1990s with likely conversion around 2005- heck we could have had the Chiarelli plan as phase 2 of the conversion. Again, my point is the only folly has been politics.

But that's how it goes.

I read this forum pretty much everyday, but most often, I just let other people speak for me. lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #716  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 2:38 AM
Catenary Catenary is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Your chart has me a little confused. The very first line has train 6 departing South Keys and at Bowesville at the same time or am I not following what you are doing?

I am also not sure how you accomplish this model with 7 trains. It seems that your chart has the same train on both branches in the same run.

Operationally, wouldn't it be more efficient to have trains pass each other along the line rather than waiting until the next train arrives at the terminus before departing? It seems that it would be a waste of limited train resources waiting a full 10 minutes at either the airport or Bowesville.
You found an error in the original image. I've changed it out in the first post, here it is again.



For trains to pass, there has to be a passing track. The most efficient place to put passing tracks is

a)Where they already are, like Carleton, Walkley and Gladstone
b)At the end of the line, since you don't need an elevator or bridge/tunnel to access a centre platform, you can just go around the end of the tracks

It just so happens that making the Airport and Bowesville stops passing tracks matches the pattern of every other station being a passing station. Breaking this pattern further complicates the service pattern of the trains. Although the Airport and Bowesville spurs function better with passing tracks in the middle at Leitrim or EY centre when looked at in an isolated fashion, they must be designed to connect to the larger system. This means following the pattern of passing-single track-passing and so on.

With regards to trains waiting at platforms, you could remove a train from each spur in this scenario if one train can cover the track and the crew can switch ends fast enough. Last year, when the train ran from Carleton to Greenboro and back on weekends, this could not be accomplished in 15 minutes (7.5 each way) and crews were missing trips when they were held up by a VIA train. Since the schedule is unlikely to get better than the 9 minutes proposed by the new service, it may be found in practice that a train on the Bowesville or Airport spurs can complete a full loop in 18 minutes, so trains 6 and 7 would not be required in the diagram starting configuration.

The train will always have to wait at Bayview (and starting next month, Greenboro as well) since if train 1 departs Bayview at the same time as train 3 departs Carleton, train 1 will be forced to wait on the siding for train 3 to arrive, and train 3 must first serve Carling station. This is made worse by the fact that Gladstone station will not be on the passing track, so train 3 must serve Carling and Gladstone before train 1 can even reach Gladstone. This problem is less pronounced at Walkley, since the train from Greenboro will reach Walkley before it reaches the passing track, and the train from Carleton will reach Confederation about the same time.

EDIT: Upon Review, this plan doesn't work because two trains cannot leave South Keys simultaneously due to the single track south of the station. The plans at the consultation provided a crossover track south of South Keys, which is unnecessary if the two tracks split/join a few hundred metres further away anyways. I'll work on a new concept.

Last edited by Catenary; Jan 16, 2015 at 3:25 AM. Reason: Fixed another issue in the table
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #717  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 3:34 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catenary View Post
You found an error in the original image. I've changed it out in the first post, here it is again.



For trains to pass, there has to be a passing track. The most efficient place to put passing tracks is

a)Where they already are, like Carleton, Walkley and Gladstone
b)At the end of the line, since you don't need an elevator or bridge/tunnel to access a centre platform, you can just go around the end of the tracks

It just so happens that making the Airport and Bowesville stops passing tracks matches the pattern of every other station being a passing station. Breaking this pattern further complicates the service pattern of the trains. Although the Airport and Bowesville spurs function better with passing tracks in the middle at Leitrim or EY centre when looked at in an isolated fashion, they must be designed to connect to the larger system. This means following the pattern of passing-single track-passing and so on.

With regards to trains waiting at platforms, you could remove a train from each spur in this scenario if one train can cover the track and the crew can switch ends fast enough. Last year, when the train ran from Carleton to Greenboro and back on weekends, this could not be accomplished in 15 minutes (7.5 each way) and crews were missing trips when they were held up by a VIA train. Since the schedule is unlikely to get better than the 9 minutes proposed by the new service, it may be found in practice that a train on the Bowesville or Airport spurs can complete a full loop in 18 minutes, so trains 6 and 7 would not be required in the diagram starting configuration.

The train will always have to wait at Bayview (and starting next month, Greenboro as well) since if train 1 departs Bayview at the same time as train 3 departs Carleton, train 1 will be forced to wait on the siding for train 3 to arrive, and train 3 must first serve Carling station. This is made worse by the fact that Gladstone station will not be on the passing track, so train 3 must serve Carling and Gladstone before train 1 can even reach Gladstone. This problem is less pronounced at Walkley, since the train from Greenboro will reach Walkley before it reaches the passing track, and the train from Carleton will reach Confederation about the same time.

EDIT: Upon Review, this plan doesn't work because two trains cannot leave South Keys simultaneously due to the single track south of the station. The plans at the consultation provided a crossover track south of South Keys, which is unnecessary if the two tracks split/join a few hundred metres further away anyways. I'll work on a new concept.
Thanks for redoing the chart.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #718  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 3:53 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeed View Post
And my point is the city out growing the transitway does not make it a folly. Consider the numerous "we should have just built LRT from the start", "Oil rich Edmonton and Calgary built electric LRTs when Ottawa uses diesel BRT and the national energy program to shuffle bureaucrats around, ironic" comments.

My point is Ottawa has an exportable model and there are vocal members who would contest that.

>anyone looking forward from the 1960s/1970s should have been able to foresee.

And the plan and what I would call the unpoliticized timeline called for a BRT tunnel being constructed in the early 1990s with likely conversion around 2005- heck we could have had the Chiarelli plan as phase 2 of the conversion. Again, my point is the only folly has been politics.

But that's how it goes.

I read this forum pretty much everyday, but most often, I just let other people speak for me. lol
The circumstances of the 1960s and 1970s were really different from today. Streetcars were dead in North America and light rail was unheard of. Toronto's legacy streetcars were 1940s models that they kept in operation until the 1980s and 1990s. Modern streetcars did not start appearing until we were well advanced in our transit planning.

Edmonton took a big — to bring new LRT technology to North America in the late 1970s and funded the project in preparation for the 1978 Commonwealth Games with oil money. The project was a failure for a whole generation and that delayed expansion of their network to the degree that it is far behind Calgary. Calgary followed up shortly afterwards with a better result. It was really Calgary that demonstrated what LRT could accomplish.

This was the same time Ottawa was planning rapid transit so the examples in Alberta were in their infancy, but Ottawa did not oil money to play with or a Commonwealth games to leverage extra government cash.

Today, we might take a more direct approach and build LRT from the get go but it was not a proven good investment or affordable in 1980.

I think Ottawa was still a very forward thinking city compared to most in North America by building any rapid transit and it was a success. Some have argued about stagnant ridership but this was a time when transit ridership was still falling in almost all North American cities.

We should be thankful that we built a city wide transitway network in the 1980s and early 1990s before the Common Sense Revolution killed transit advancement for a decade. This was a major factor in not proceeding with the downtown bus tunnel in a timely manner. Provincial money dried up.

And of course politics were greatly involved in our LRT misstep that set us back another decade. I totally agree that politics has been the number 1 hindrance for Ottawa's rapid transit development. Can you imagine if Tim Hudak had become premier? Our rapid transit planning would have come to a grinding halt yet again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #719  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:14 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The circumstances of the 1960s and 1970s were really different from today. Streetcars were dead in North America and light rail was unheard of. Toronto's legacy streetcars were 1940s models that they kept in operation until the 1980s and 1990s. Modern streetcars did not start appearing until we were well advanced in our transit planning.

Edmonton took a big gamble to bring new LRT technology to North America in the late 1970s and funded the project in preparation for the 1978 Commonwealth Games with oil money. The project was a failure for a whole generation and that delayed expansion of their network to the degree that it is far behind Calgary. Calgary followed up shortly afterwards with a better result. It was really Calgary that demonstrated what LRT could accomplish.

This was the same time Ottawa was planning rapid transit so the examples in Alberta were in their infancy, but Ottawa did not oil money to play with or a Commonwealth games to leverage extra government cash.

Today, we might take a more direct approach and build LRT from the get go but it was not a proven good investment or affordable in 1980.

I think Ottawa was still a very forward thinking city compared to most in North America by building any rapid transit and it was a success. Some have argued about stagnant ridership but this was a time when transit ridership was still falling in almost all North American cities.

We should be thankful that we built a city wide transitway network in the 1980s and early 1990s before the Common Sense Revolution killed transit advancement for a decade. This was a major factor in not proceeding with the downtown bus tunnel in a timely manner. Provincial money dried up.

And of course politics were greatly involved in our LRT misstep that set us back another decade. I totally agree that politics has been the number 1 hindrance for Ottawa's rapid transit development. Can you imagine if Tim Hudak had become premier? Our rapid transit planning would have come to a grinding halt yet again.
I'll agree.. but with one major exception: lack of foresight is an issue. Anyone looking at the numbers in the 1970s should have been able to realize that by the early 21st century the Transitway would have been overloaded. I realize that LRT was not a thing back then but HRT was. They should have planned the whole project with the expectation of conversion to a metro/subway at some point. They claim they did, but the reality is they didn't, as evidenced by how disruptive the conversion process is.

Second of all, the bus tunnel would not have fixed the problem, only delayed conversion for another 10-15 years. As the city noted the bus tunnel itself would be overcapacity by 2031 if we had built it instead of the Confederation Line. And the surface section of the Transitway is arguably overloaded too even today... look at the mess at Hurdman or Tunney's created by bus overload, for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #720  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 12:50 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The circumstances of the 1960s and 1970s were really different from today. Streetcars were dead in North America and light rail was unheard of. Toronto's legacy streetcars were 1940s models that they kept in operation until the 1980s and 1990s. Modern streetcars did not start appearing until we were well advanced in our transit planning.

Edmonton took a big gamble to bring new LRT technology to North America in the late 1970s and funded the project in preparation for the 1978 Commonwealth Games with oil money. The project was a failure for a whole generation and that delayed expansion of their network to the degree that it is far behind Calgary. Calgary followed up shortly afterwards with a better result. It was really Calgary that demonstrated what LRT could accomplish.

This was the same time Ottawa was planning rapid transit so the examples in Alberta were in their infancy, but Ottawa did not oil money to play with or a Commonwealth games to leverage extra government cash.

Today, we might take a more direct approach and build LRT from the get go but it was not a proven good investment or affordable in 1980.

I think Ottawa was still a very forward thinking city compared to most in North America by building any rapid transit and it was a success. Some have argued about stagnant ridership but this was a time when transit ridership was still falling in almost all North American cities.

We should be thankful that we built a city wide transitway network in the 1980s and early 1990s before the Common Sense Revolution killed transit advancement for a decade. This was a major factor in not proceeding with the downtown bus tunnel in a timely manner. Provincial money dried up.

And of course politics were greatly involved in our LRT misstep that set us back another decade. I totally agree that politics has been the number 1 hindrance for Ottawa's rapid transit development. Can you imagine if Tim Hudak had become premier? Our rapid transit planning would have come to a grinding halt yet again.
I don't have much knowledge of Ottawa in that era, but I understand key decisions were taken in the 1980s when the Calgary and Edmonton systems were both up and running, the Vancouver system was under construction. It is also after Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto also had established commuter rail systems. At that time the province was paying 75% of transit costs (before adopting the Harris policy of paying nothing or the Mcguinty policy of paying 100% in Toronto and much less in Ottawa) and municipalities had a lot of cash for things like new city halls so it would seem to me there would have been options available.

The fact that so much of the transitway follows existing or former rail corridors and the o-train was created at very minimal cost but was still successful to me is an indication a poor choice was made.

But even if BRT was for some reason the only option, I think it was implemented poorly with huge infrastructure expenditures in the inner suburbs, no infrastructure downtown (and a poorly thought out plan to build a bus tunnel) and little outside the greenbelt. Much of the transitway could have been implemented with bus lanes on existing roads and highways and certainly many of the stations could been much less elaborate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.