LRT Stage 3

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

It will take a billion dollars to bring the trillium line to Confederation standards again- that's the starting point of this process.

Misunderstood you. Yes. If we're spending on a full upgrade, it's a different ball game.

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Do we want to bring the Trillium Line up to Confederation spec? If so then we need to have it double tracked for most of the way and I didn't see the value in doing that while maintaining the SE transitway when we can convert half of it to make the Trillium Line better, make a better airport rail link and make a better Crosstown Transitway as already the plans for the Baseline transitway basically shrug when it comes to how to get the 88 onto the SE transitway better. Again most of the inner city bus lines should end at ether Baseline or Hurdman which is better served through the Baseline/Heron/Walkley corridor.

Anyone thinking OCtranspo should keep running rapid buses from Greenboro to Hurdman in the future after spending this much money on the Trillium Line is beyond me. Or else they don't want to see the Trillium line move outta the beta phase it's stuck in.

It's not about running buses from Greenboro to Hurdman. It's about not forcing an unnecessary transfer in the Southeast. The SE Transitway is great at facilitating a trip to anybody going to the eastern half of downtown (with the Rideau Centre, U of O, Market, etc.) and going East itself (St-Laurent, Orleans, etc.)

If you get on a bus in Alta-Vista, why should you have to get off and transfer to Trillium? Stay on another 10 mins and get to Hurdman. Makes no sense to force riders from Southeast to take a train trip to the west of downtown just to boost Trillium Line ridership. If we were talking about building the BRT, it'd be a different matter. But it exists. Makes no sense to trash it just to bump numbers of the Trillium Line.

I agree that there may be a case to be made for getting rid of the BRT south of Walkley.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Someone coming from Kingston, who is looking to get to the airport, would have a quicker, and shorter, trip to the airport if they just got off at Fallowfield and could take a bus to the airport. Going all the way to the "central" station adds a lot of travel time and distance and backtracking.

On another note, if you live in the Kingston, you pretty much have an equal trip to either Ottawa, Pearson, or Dorval. 9 times out of 10, Toronto is the cheapest flight option, which means the market for Kingston travellers is not overly huge.

And the train station is in a terrible location so spending all kinds of money to adapt to its nonsense doesn't make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That was not my point. They will need to cross each other south of Hunt Club.

No they won't.

If the south east transitway is converted the line continues south. The existing rail line is already on the right side of the right of way. (The left).

The transitway bridge over hunt club is already ready for double wide track. Save money by recycle that. The rail line is already one track you won't need double track for the airport rail link since it will operate at a fairly low headway.

You would probably have to buy some land in order to jig the SE transitway over to the railway right of way but those lots are occupied by garages and junkyards.

Converting the south east transitway would get you double tracked from Limebank to Heron without any bridge replacements or widening of underpasses.

Converting the existing rail line requires replacing 5 bridges and widening Walkley underpass!!

This is massive increase in the cost to bring the Trillium Line up to Confederation Line specs all so we don't replace a transitway that stops making a lot of sense once we consider spending the money on the Trillium Line to bring it up to spec.

So we ether keep the SE transitway or we don't upgrade the Trillium Line to Confederation Line specs in my mind because the only prudent way to do that is to recycle the SE transitway and rationalize the Trillium line as serving the south end. Why are we up in arms about Greenboro requiring 2 transfers and not Findlay Creek?

If you want to keep running the 98 to Hurdman via bank and then Heron/SE Transitway by all means. But it doesn't make sense to leave the SE transitway **if** we are going to move the Trillium Line past the beta hodge podge it is. The hundreds of millions it would save to convert the SE transitway would give us a better Trillium Line and a better airport rail link.

This money could be allocated to the double tracking the trench or doubling the Rideau River Bridge or the tunnel since these are the big challenges.

If the whole system was double tracked except for the Rideau River Bridge and the tunnel under does lake you might be able to run the system with great reliability and low headways without these expensive parts.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

We don't design things only for one use case. We need to design solutions for that work for multiple use case.

It's still a better downtown airport rail link that requires one less transfer that also happens to put that transfer at a location that can be used to interlink with rail.

I'm sure you would find it faster considering their would be less stops and be just as close to downtown just on the east end, be less congested, would require one less transfer.

Let the Trillium Line be it's own thing and let the airport to downtown link be it's own thing and you will have a better network overall.

Except if you are coming from Kingston it wouldn't be faster. The time it would take to get to the airport, if you got off at Fallowfield and could take a relatively direct bus to the airport, would be the same as the time it would take the train just to get from Fallowfield to Central Station. It would probably add an additional 20 minutes to the trip.

And whether this will still be true once LRT gets to Fallowfield I am not sure (I suspect it will be), but, before sections of the Transitway were closed, you could get to Lyon Station just as fast if you got off at Fallowfield and took the 95 all the way downtown, versus taking the train to Central Station and taking the 95 from there. If you were going to Tunney's Pasture, getting off at Fallowfield was consistently 5 - 10 minutes faster. Maybe some people would rather stay on a train and take the extra time, but personally, I opted for the fastest trip. The location of the Central Station makes for some counter-intuitive travel times to various parts of the city.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Except if you are coming from Kingston it wouldn't be faster. The time it would take to get to the airport, if you got off at Fallowfield and could take a relatively direct bus to the airport, would be the same as the time it would take the train just to get from Fallowfield to Central Station. It would probably add an additional 20 minutes to the trip.

And whether this will still be true once LRT gets to Fallowfield I am not sure (I suspect it will be), but, before sections of the Transitway were closed, you could get to Lyon Station just as fast if you got off at Fallowfield and took the 95 all the way downtown, versus taking the train to Central Station and taking the 95 from there. If you were going to Tunney's Pasture, getting off at Fallowfield was consistently 5 - 10 minutes faster. Maybe some people would rather stay on a train and take the extra time, but personally, I opted for the fastest trip. The location of the Central Station makes for some counter-intuitive travel times to various parts of the city.

What relatively direct bus exists from Fallowfield to the Airport?

You definitely cant sell this to someone in Kingston as a service.

Central Station to the airport means two opposing institutions (or generally seen as opposing) could work together to share costs and position Ottawa International as an international gateway through say VIA high frequency rail plans and combining tickets.

Again, might not be a perfection solution but it's a good one for an airport rail link that solves a lot off issues with the double transfer at South Keys especially as we try and grow the trillium line to Confederation Line specs for the south end.

Especially since in the we don't know how much transit volume might find it better to go to downtown via the Trillium Line in Barrhaven instead of funneling volume to the Baseline spur that will probably be very busy in the morning.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

We really should have had the Confederation Line tunnel under Laurier to better capture walkups from Centretown but that ship has sailed.

Running it that far south would have meant skipping Rideau Street and the ByWard Market. Even the original plan to run it diagonally southward though downtown was too much and Queen the happy medium. I think it works well for Sparks Street anyway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

No they won't.

If the south east transitway is converted the line continues south. The existing rail line is already on the right side of the right of way. (The left).

The transitway bridge over hunt club is already ready for double wide track. Save money by recycle that. The rail line is already one track you won't need double track for the airport rail link since it will operate at a fairly low headway.

You would probably have to buy some land in order to jig the SE transitway over to the railway right of way but those lots are occupied by garages and junkyards.

Converting the south east transitway would get you double tracked from Limebank to Heron without any bridge replacements or widening of underpasses.

Converting the existing rail line requires replacing 5 bridges and widening Walkley underpass!!

This is massive increase in the cost to bring the Trillium Line up to Confederation Line specs all so we don't replace a transitway that stops making a lot of sense once we consider spending the money on the Trillium Line to bring it up to spec.

So we ether keep the SE transitway or we don't upgrade the Trillium Line to Confederation Line specs in my mind because the only prudent way to do that is to recycle the SE transitway and rationalize the Trillium line as serving the south end. Why are we up in arms about Greenboro requiring 2 transfers and not Findlay Creek?

If you want to keep running the 98 to Hurdman via bank and then Heron/SE Transitway by all means. But it doesn't make sense to leave the SE transitway **if** we are going to move the Trillium Line past the beta hodge podge it is. The hundreds of millions it would save to convert the SE transitway would give us a better Trillium Line and a better airport rail link.

This money could be allocated to the double tracking the trench or doubling the Rideau River Bridge or the tunnel since these are the big challenges.

If the whole system was double tracked except for the Rideau River Bridge and the tunnel under does lake you might be able to run the system with great reliability and low headways without these expensive parts.

I understand what you are getting at but then you have a jumble of three rail lines all coming together at or near Ellwood Junction.

Nevertheless, I fundamentally disagree with cutting off connections on the SE Transitway that have developed ridership for decades.

You propose new connections with limited ridership potential while not respecting existing connections with higher ridership.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I understand what you are getting at but then you have a jumble of three rail lines all coming together at or near Ellwood Junction.

Nevertheless, I fundamentally disagree with cutting off connections on the SE Transitway that have developed ridership for decades.

You propose new connections with limited ridership potential while not respecting existing connections with higher ridership.

Sorry for spelling issues in previous points; commenting from my phone.

The geography of the Ellwood junction is already pretty much ready for this rejig. Again, the main benefit of this plan is how much of the expensive stuff - structures like underpasses and bridges are ready made for this as you would be able to go from Mooney's Bay to Limebank without any structures being replaced only laying track on the transitway, installing catenary equipment, rejigging the Ellwood junction *while* at the same time recycling all the existing otrain trillium line infrastructure to run a Airport rail link with the diesel rolling stock and maintenance equipment.

Again, my plan only works if you want to see the Trillium Line upgraded to Confederation Line specs this side of 2050. This would require a whole new MSF site as well.

I don't see how you can realistically do this without using the existing transitway.

Everything we are currently doing with the diesel Trillium Line could be recycled to offer this superior Airport Link. Extra trains could be put to work on commuter rail from farther out or sold. This plan recycles the exiting Trillium Line infrastructure in away that can support commuter rail - upgrading the current Trillium Line right of way to Confederation Line specs makes running commuter rail service in the future much harder.

Yet if we try to keep the Airport Link tied into the Trillium Line we will have to throw it all out which decreases how quickly we can see the Trillium Line "finished" at Confederation Line specs.





If we don't recycle the SE transitway south of Heron I'm fine with the Trillium Line staying as it is. We have limited capital resources and the "waste" of not recycling the SE transitway brings to much in opportunity cost.

Most of the bridges on the VIA rail line have the capacity to hold double tracks.

[JohnnyRenton]

So here is a question for everyone. Since money is the deciding factor on how much can be built, what do you think should be built with the next $3 billion of funding for major transit projects in Ottawa? Keep in mind that there are estimates of some of the phase 3 projects (Moodie to Terry Fox would cost #710 million, Moodie to Stittsville would be $1.85 billion), plus what we know stage 1 and 2 costs, so reasonable cost estimates should be made for each project being proposed. You can also use estimates from equivalent projects in other Canadian cities (so a subway in Ottawa could be based on the typical cost of one in Toronto, etc). In addition to LRT, major BRT projects are included as part of this $3 billion dollar price tag.

And for those that want to make the question even harder, assume a situation where the Gatineau SLR is partially approved and under construction as well (so the lines that are on the Gatineau side are going to be built, but not the interprovincial crossings, because interprovincial transit is going to be messy and need some real coordination). So in this scenario, what would you do with $3.5 billion, where $400-$800 million needs to go to interprovincial connections, the rest goes to Ottawa, and for the river crossings, you can pick for either STO or OC Transpo, or both, to provide the service. It should also reflect the higher number of people that commute from Gatineau to Ottawa, then vice versa.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I think a Montreal LRT (subway) has a better business case than a Bank Street LRT (subway).

How so? Bank St has Landsdowne, which is a major destination that is currently poorly served by transit.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The Baseline BRT will be a "complete street" with dedicated bus lanes and dedicated bike lanes, because there is more space.

You are forgetting the most important component of a complete street, pedestrians. Baseline will still be a 4 lane highway. With buse lanes, bike lanes and 4+ vehicle lanes, the crosswalks will be very long

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Anyone thinking OCtranspo should keep running rapid buses from Greenboro to Hurdman in the future after spending this much money on the Trillium Line is beyond me. Or else they don't want to see the Trillium line move outta the beta phase it's stuck in.

I think OC Transpo will add and remove buses on the SE Transitway from Greenboro to balance the E/W load on the Confederation line.

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Most of the bridges on the VIA rail line have the capacity to hold double tracks.

When I last looked, most wouldn’t support double track, then again I was looking from the junction with the Smiths Falls sub.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

How so? Bank St has Landsdowne, which is a major destination that is currently poorly served by transit.

Sure, but you can't build and sustain transit off special events, and on the average day it's not nearly as big of a draw. Montreal Road on the other hand has the Montfort, La Cité, and the NRC.

It also seems to me Montreal Road would be more open to further intensifcation than the Bank Street corridor. You're already seeing the slow march of condos eastward along Rideau Street, plus you have Waterridge Village adding more residents to the catchment area.

Finally, if you check out the cbc news story breaking down mode choice in each ward, Vanier has much higher transit ridership than Capital Ward, and I don't see this trend changing too much going forward.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

So here is a question for everyone. Since money is the deciding factor on how much can be built, what do you think should be built with the next $3 billion of funding for major transit projects in Ottawa? Keep in mind that there are estimates of some of the phase 3 projects (Moodie to Terry Fox would cost #710 million, Moodie to Stittsville would be $1.85 billion), plus what we know stage 1 and 2 costs, so reasonable cost estimates should be made for each project being proposed. You can also use estimates from equivalent projects in other Canadian cities (so a subway in Ottawa could be based on the typical cost of one in Toronto, etc). In addition to LRT, major BRT projects are included as part of this $3 billion dollar price tag.

My answers don't change much, the list just gets shorter.

• LRT to Kanata up to Terry Fox - $700 M
• Trillium Line to 10 minute headway - $20M
• Trillium Line short extension to Gatineau to add another connection to Gatineau SLR (note assume Gatineau SLR will use either Chaudiere, Portage, or Alexandra as its main connection) - $180M
• Montreal Road extension as part of Confederation Line - remaining $2100M

Again, I'm totally ignoring politics here. Also assume the Baseline BRT from Algonquin to Billings is built as part of Stage 2.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Sure, but you can't build and sustain transit off special events, and on the average day it's not nearly as big of a draw.

I wasn’t suggesting that it be built only for special events. Landsdowne does have more to it than special events. Having said that, special events are very common at Landsdowne (not daily but probably more than 50% of days have at least something going on). Politically it would have more support as more across the city want to go to Landsdowne than Montreal Rd.

Montreal Road on the other hand has the Montfort, La Cité, and the NRC.

It also seems to me Montreal Road would be more open to further intensifcation than the Bank Street corridor. You're already seeing the slow march of condos eastward along Rideau Street, plus you have Waterridge Village adding more residents to the catchment area.

Finally, if you check out the cbc news story breaking down mode choice in each ward, Vanier has much higher transit ridership than Capital Ward, and I don't see this trend changing too much going forward.

Good points but unlike Montreal road, Bank st has a better potential for extensions to draw ridership from the suburbs. I know there are 2 other routes, but neither go downtown, where as the Confedtion line downtown does.

[lrt's friend]

When I last looked, most wouldn’t support double track, then again I was looking from the junction with the Smiths Falls sub.

The Bank Street overpass is only single tracked without room for a second track and we will need a grade separation at Pleasant Park. The latter will need a rethink with the Transitway station and trench immediately adjacent. The Smyth Road and Riverside Drive overpasses both have room for a second track and there is double tracking from the Hurdman Station overpass into the station.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I wasn’t suggesting that it be built only for special events. Landsdowne does have more to it than special events. Having said that, special events are very common at Landsdowne (not daily but probably more than 50% of days have at least something going on). Politically it would have more support as more across the city want to go to Landsdowne than Montreal Rd.



Good points but unlike Montreal road, Bank st has a better potential for extensions to draw ridership from the suburbs. I know there are 2 other routes, but neither go downtown, where as the Confedtion line downtown does.

Billings Bridge is already a density node and we know that Billings Bridge Plaza itself has plans for considerable intensification. A subway would likely be a driver in this moving forward. Furthermore, with a subway, that project would be built higher.

With the rapid transit corridor already developed between Billings Bridge and South Keys, a subway only has to reach Billings Bridge before it can go above ground and still be totally grade separated for the rest of the way at a lower cost than could be accomplished on Montreal Road.

A Bank Street subway will allow us to forgo further expenditures on the Trillium Line and reduce pressure on the Confederation Line between Bayview and Hurdman.

Overall, a Bank Street subway will offer more value.

I am not saying that we shouldn't consider a Montreal Road route, not at all. But, a Bank Street route should not be dismissed as inferior.

Bank Street is Ottawa's Yonge Street and a subway will have a similar impact on the corridor as has occurred with the Yonge subway over the years.

[Truenorth00]

LOL @ the comparison to Yonge.

Yonge had loads of streetcars on it before the subway was built. And most of that was local demand, not people using it commute through to the core. They also didn't have a parallel rail line available for north-south travel. Richmond Hill GO wasn't a thing back then. If they had a parallel rail corridor they'd have absolutely used that.

And that's exactly what will happen here. Everytime they look at this issue, they'll come to exactly the same conclusion. Cheaper and faster to rebuild Trillium than to build a $3 billion subway that won't see anywhere close to 10 000 pphpd for decades, especially with the Trillium Line still running. The feds and Queen's Park would never find this.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

LOL @ the comparison to Yonge.

Yonge had loads of streetcars on it before the subway was built. And most of that was local demand, not people using it commute through to the core. They also didn't have a parallel rail line available for north-south travel. Richmond Hill GO wasn't a thing back then. If they had a parallel rail corridor they'd have absolutely used that.

And that's exactly what will happen here. Everytime they look at this issue, they'll come to exactly the same conclusion. Cheaper and faster to rebuild Trillium than to build a $3 billion subway that won't see anywhere close to 10 000 pphpd for decades, especially with the Trillium Line still running. The feds and Queen's Park would never find this.

Exactly. Not to mention that the development potential on the line is going to be pretty limited through the Glebe and Ottawa South. The rate of progress is slow in those areas, and there is a very strong resistance to change by the people that live there. The only parts of those neighbourhoods where any kind of real development could take place is along Bronson. And from Billings Bridge southward, there are transit lines that will largely support that corridor. A Bank Street subway is not going to be considered seriously for many decades to come.

I would also argue that Montreal/Rideau/Wellington/Richmond is Ottawa's equivalent of Yonge St.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Bank Street overpass is only single tracked without room for a second track and we will need a grade separation at Pleasant Park. The latter will need a rethink with the Transitway station and trench immediately adjacent. The Smyth Road and Riverside Drive overpasses both have room for a second track and there is double tracking from the Hurdman Station overpass into the station.

If we're talking about my idea to run to Airport link from the train station to over come some of the limitations of it being an appendage of the Trillium Line we would almost certainly not have to grade seperate nor double track anything as it would run at a "right sized" headway of 15/20 mins and could use existing heavy rail rolling stock.

As the new FLIRTs are being used across the US for commuter rail.

The key benefit of my idea is the fact we don't have to make any changes to the existing heavy rail network (more or less), it unbundles the Trillium Line from the legacy issues of the pilot project and allows us to start investigating regional rail options while improving the airport rail link (reducing the double transfer from downtown, connecting to regional modes of transport) and allows the Trillium Line to "grow up" to Confederation Line specs at reduced costs by converting the south east transitway.

But I've said my pieace so I won't repeat myself to much lol

Just if we wanted to run an airport rail link *and* upgrade the Trillium Line running the airport rail link from the train station allows use to pretty much use all the existing infrastructure minus fixing the Ellwood junction and building a station at the train station.

[Mikeed]

We have to consider that a bank street subway goes through the glebe, which offers not a whole lot of potential in redevelopment and would be resistive to this project. A bank street subway would require nearly a 4.5km long tunnel before reaching the South East Transitway at a cost- assuming 250 million dollars per km of underground subway which is a fair estimate based on research- 1.125 billion dollars.

The same distance from Rideau down Montreal Road would get us to Montfort Hospital and offer much better transformational opportunity for the area.

Not only that but using the south east transitway would guarantee the Trillium Line never moves past the pilot project legacy to Confederation Line specs, would largly duplicate along the Trillium Line and would leave the section of the South East Transitway from Billings Bridge to Hurdman essentially useless. And disrupt the ability for the Crosstown Transitway to reach meaningful nodes like Hurdman.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Exactly. Not to mention that the development potential on the line is going to be pretty limited through the Glebe and Ottawa South. The rate of progress is slow in those areas, and there is a very strong resistance to change by the people that live there.

The kind of density needed to justify a subway on Bank would kill the Glebe. And I expect flat out protests if that kind of development was ever pushed by the city.

This whole comparison to Yonge is very superficial. People say that because it's a somewhat developed street that's also north-south oriented. But in terms of development and urban feel, the southern parts of Bank are pretty suburban. Especially past the Rideau River.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

A Bank Street subway is not going to be considered seriously for many decades to come.

Easily not in our lifetimes. And probably not this century. Spend 1-2 billion and the whole extended Trillium Line from Bayview to Limebank can have > 20 000 pphpd with high frequency service. For that same cost, all you'd get on Bank is a subway from Queen to Lansdowne. There is no planner or politician who will take that trade. And quite frankly, I don't think there's even a case to make on ridership, the longer Trillium Line would beat out a shorter Bank subway everytime.

I don't even know why people are so obsessed with a Bank St. subway. The high cost of grade separation means stop spacing would be higher. And the construction would probably kill so many businesses along Bank. I still think the best solution for them is to take away street parking, use double deckers and increase bus frequency to every 3-5 minutes. If Bank was in Europe somewhere, this is exactly how it would work. Nobody would arguing it needed a full subway.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I would also argue that Montreal/Rideau/Wellington/Richmond is Ottawa's equivalent of Yonge St.

Yep. I'd argue this is where the real development potential is. More so than the Glebe for sure. It's easier to connect to the Confederation Line and you only really need that tunneling through Vanier.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't even know why people are so obsessed with a Bank St. subway. The high cost of grade separation means stop spacing would be higher. And the construction would probably kill so many businesses along Bank. I still think the best solution for them is to take away street parking, use double deckers and increase bus frequency to every 3-5 minutes. If Bank was in Europe somewhere, this is exactly how it would work. Nobody would arguing it needed a full subway.

Big agree. Eliminate street parking and paint some bus lanes where there's room.