LRT Stage 3

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Surface tram routes where the Citadis can be redeployed if we get full 120m length transets

What would you use to replace the Citadis? Are you proposing to use 120m trains on your tram routes or the existing trains on these routes? If the Citadis are built out to 120m in the future it will because the demand is there to support it. That means probably all trains will be the 120m length. If you are talking about replacing the Citadis with heavy metro cars you will probably require modifications to the tunnels and stations to support the wider vehicles. If the metro vehicles are 120m long then why replace the Citadis for the few extra people a metro train would carry. What we need to increase capacity is to increase frequency since this is the lowest cost option. We need 15 trains running on the line to do this.

Straightening out the track alignment in the east end between the Rideau River bridge and junction to the maintenance yard would also speed up transit times and increase equipment utilization. Most of this would be costly and difficult to do while continuing to operate the Confederation line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

What would you use to replace the Citadis? Are you proposing to use 120m trains on your tram routes or the existing trains on these routes? If the Citadis are built out to 120m in the future it will because the demand is there to support it. That means probably all trains will be the 120m length. If you are talking about replacing the Citadis with heavy metro cars you will probably require modifications to the tunnels and stations to support the wider vehicles. If the metro vehicles are 120m long then why replace the Citadis for the few extra people a metro train would carry. What we need to increase capacity is to increase frequency since this is the lowest cost option. We need 15 trains running on the line to do this. Straightening out the track alignment in the east end between the Rideau River bridge and junction to the maintenance yard would also speed up transit times and increase equipment utilization. Most of this would be costly and difficult to do while continuing to operate the Confederation line.

We're currently running 96 meter trains (two 48 meter linked cars) and the system is built to support 120 meter trains (underground platforms already at 120 meters and surface platforms at 90 meters, expandable to 100-120 meters).

What Kitchissippi is proposing is that once we require 120 meter trains for the Confederation Line, after nearly maxing out frequency, new trains would be purchased and the old trains could be re-purposed as street trams.

That said, the City's current plan is the following: when the extra capacity is needed (beyond increasing frequency) we won't be purchasing new 120 meter trains but instead additional modules for each car. We'll only be expanding (in length) the current fleet and not buying new rolling-stock. The Citadis Spirits were designed specifically for this eventuality. We'll never have a chance to "re-purpose" the current fleet as street trams and the line will never be (or need to be) converted to heavy-rail.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We're currently running 96 meter trains (two 48 meter linked cars) and the system is built to support 120 meter trains (underground platforms already at 120 meters and surface platforms at 90 meters, expandable to 100-120 meters).

What Kitchissippi is proposing is that once we require 120 meter trains for the Confederation Line, after nearly maxing out frequency, new trains would be purchased and the old trains could be re-purposed as street trams.

That said, the City's current plan is the following: when the extra capacity is needed (beyond increasing frequency) we won't be purchasing new 120 meter trains but instead additional modules for each car. We'll only be expanding (in length) the current fleet and not buying new rolling-stock. The Citadis Spirits were designed specifically for this eventuality. We'll never have a chance to "re-purpose" the current fleet as street trams and the line will never be (or need to be) converted to heavy-rail.

So, maybe a better question could be - Is there a need for Streetcar routes?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Surface tram routes where the Citadis can be redeployed if we get full 120m length transets

The map really drives home the point that we are getting a suburban commuter system rather than true urban transit. I like the idea of tram routes and would argue that those should be a priority if we really want to serve residents of the denser, urban neighbourhoods and shift people to transit for all trips, not just commuting.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by phil235

The map really drives home the point that we are getting a suburban commuter system rather than true urban transit. I like the idea of tram routes and would argue that those should be a priority if we really want to serve residents of the denser, urban neighbourhoods and shift people to transit for all trips, not just commuting.

Stage 3 or 4 could do that, but if we were to ask how can the city bring the LRT to the most people and reduce congestion on the road, going to the suburbs with it is a good way.

Surface streetcar routes, downtown, should they be on every street? Should there be a grid? How would you and others see it working?

[lrt's friend]

Unless we are doing grade separation, streetcars/LRT on streets cannot be the length of what we bought for C-Line. On street, streetcars must be in a segregated lane with traffic light priority.

I think that Bank Street is one of the key corridors and will need to be underground as far as Billings Bridge. Bank Street is too narrow to accommodate both streetcars and regular traffic.

We won't be seeing any of this for several decades.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Stage 3 or 4 could do that, but if we were to ask how can the city bring the LRT to the most people and reduce congestion on the road, going to the suburbs with it is a good way.

Surface streetcar routes, downtown, should they be on every street? Should there be a grid? How would you and others see it working?

I'd agree in terms of commuting, but in terms of overall ridership, you would get the biggest bump by bringing higher-order transit into the denser central areas with higher transit use. The LRT as designed isn't going to allow suburban residents to do all of their travel by transit, so overall ridership won't grow as much. We are getting better at building density around transit nodes, but it will take a complete redesign of most suburban neighbourhoods to give them the transit potential that exists in the denser, central neighbourhoods.

In terms of routes, that is a good question. Definitely you want to create a grid of high frequency routes, but with surface LRT on dedicated routes, I would see the grid being spaced at something approaching 2 km (so the maximum walk is less than 1 km). I like how Kitchissippi is suggesting routes like the QED and Carling, as those are likely doable. A more difficult, but ultimately rewarding approach would be to target Bank or Bronson to get more direct N-S routes that are more heavily traveled.

Edit: I agree with lrt's friend - the proper way to bring transit to the spine of the city is to use Bank St. and put it underground. That said, I think a surface route along the QED, hitting spots like Lansdowne, Carleton and the new hospital would do a lot for transit riders, (if less for intensification) and the price tag would be a fraction of a Bank St. subway.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We're currently running 96 meter trains (two 48 meter linked cars) and the system is built to support 120 meter trains (underground platforms already at 120 meters and surface platforms at 90 meters, expandable to 100-120 meters).

What Kitchissippi is proposing is that once we require 120 meter trains for the Confederation Line, after nearly maxing out frequency, new trains would be purchased and the old trains could be re-purposed as street trams.

That said, the City's current plan is the following: when the extra capacity is needed (beyond increasing frequency) we won't be purchasing new 120 meter trains but instead additional modules for each car. We'll only be expanding (in length) the current fleet and not buying new rolling-stock. The Citadis Spirits were designed specifically for this eventuality. We'll never have a chance to "re-purpose" the current fleet as street trams and the line will never be (or need to be) converted to heavy-rail.

Maybe Kitchissippi is suggesting that we take the trains, add the module to make the train 120m and when they are replaced 30-40 years out or demand requires it we split each train into the 2 cars currently coupled together to provide twice as many 60m trains or trams. Even 60m seems long for street service.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Maybe Kitchissippi is suggesting that we take the trains, add the module to make the train 120m and when they are replaced 30-40 years out or demand requires it we split each train into the 2 cars currently coupled together to provide twice as many 60m trains or trams. Even 60m seems long for street service.

By then, the Spirits will be run-down and obsolete. They will have to be retired.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

By then, the Spirits will be run-down and obsolete. They will have to be retired.

Kinda like the CLRVs?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Maybe Kitchissippi is suggesting that we take the trains, add the module to make the train 120m and when they are replaced 30-40 years out or demand requires it we split each train into the 2 cars currently coupled together to provide twice as many 60m trains or trams. Even 60m seems long for street service.

Trams should be no longer than the recently purchased versions used in Toronto. High frequency needs to be part of the plan for urban streets. There is no sense in building tramways and then offer 20 or 30 minute frequency. I would like to see a minimum frequency of every 10 minutes and 60m trams would be overkill.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'd agree in terms of commuting, but in terms of overall ridership, you would get the biggest bump by bringing higher-order transit into the denser central areas with higher transit use. The LRT as designed isn't going to allow suburban residents to do all of their travel by transit, so overall ridership won't grow as much. We are getting better at building density around transit nodes, but it will take a complete redesign of most suburban neighbourhoods to give them the transit potential that exists in the denser, central neighbourhoods.

In terms of routes, that is a good question. Definitely you want to create a grid of high frequency routes, but with surface LRT on dedicated routes, I would see the grid being spaced at something approaching 2 km (so the maximum walk is less than 1 km). I like how Kitchissippi is suggesting routes like the QED and Carling, as those are likely doable. A more difficult, but ultimately rewarding approach would be to target Bank or Bronson to get more direct N-S routes that are more heavily traveled.

Edit: I agree with lrt's friend - the proper way to bring transit to the spine of the city is to use Bank St. and put it underground. That said, I think a surface route along the QED, hitting spots like Lansdowne, Carleton and the new hospital would do a lot for transit riders, (if less for intensification) and the price tag would be a fraction of a Bank St. subway.

A Carling QED route has compromised value if we are trying make our primary urban streets more accessible. I am not against the general concept except that it would need to run down Elgin.

I would also like to say that a Carling QED route in no way serves the same market as a Bank Street subway. They run more or less at right angles. Based on current transit demand, the north-south route is more important than an east-west route through that portion of the central part of the city.

Nevertheless, the ideal would be to have both routes.

In general, transit needs to be more supportive of our urban parts of the city. There is more opportunity in those locations for infill and intensification than on most of the C-Line (Westboro, Hintonburg, Lebreton excepted). In the case of the C-Line, we are trying to force intensification whether the locations are attractive or not. I think this can only take us so far.

I am really hoping that we do a turn around and think more of bringing quality transit to the people instead of trying to force people to transit.

I look at strong intensification plans for Elmvale, Westgate, Herongate, and south Bank Street, and we are not significantly supporting these opportunities with enhanced transit. Those locations also have the added value of offering potential for housing for people of modest income.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

To balance the western interlining, how about an eastern split at Hurdman going along the Hospital Link to Innes then continuing down the old rail ROW past Science and Tech. It could end in a large park-and-ride structure at Walkley/Sheffield to catch commuters from the eastern 417 and tourists from Montreal. Currently there is nothing that encourages anyone from this approach to the city to leave their cars outside the core.

Also, maybe in the future order full 120m trainsets and redeploy the separate 70+ Citadis units as surface trams across several routes in the city. Retrofit the BRT routes with streetcar-style rails so they can be used by both trams and buses, keeping them flexible.

(click for large)

I like it. I think interlining one side of the network and not the other will eventually prove to be a problem that will be difficult to resolve in the long term. On the one hand, I think Kanata and Barrhaven residents will be clamouring for more frequency once the LRT gets out to them. On the other hand, once Orleans residents get used to their service level, it'll be hard politically to interline them so that only half of the trains go out there.

I think interlining on the east side is a good idea, I just think it'll take somebody with courage to push for it and I'm not sure Watson's the man for that job.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I like it. I think interlining one side of the network and not the other will eventually prove to be a problem that will be difficult to resolve in the long term. On the one hand, I think Kanata and Barrhaven residents will be clamouring for more frequency once the LRT gets out to them. On the other hand, once Orleans residents get used to their service level, it'll be hard politically to interline them so that only half of the trains go out there.

I think interlining on the east side is a good idea, I just think it'll take somebody with courage to push for it and I'm not sure Watson's the man for that job.

Watson's job is to get funding for Stage 3. Once that's done, he'll be able to step down and enjoy retirement. In other words, I don't think he'll run in 2022.

I don't believe the City plans on running all trains to Orléans. Short-turning every second train at Blair has been discussed. I do like the idea of splitting the line at Hurdman to serve the General Campus and CHEO. Major institutions such as those should be served by rapid transit. The cost would be relatively affordable compared to Stage 1, 2 and 3.

If funding was limitless, I'd like to see segregated trams run down Carling and Baseline. Both are wide enough to support it. In the current reality of limited funds, bus lanes or a "Transitway light" would likely suffice. Frequency should be every 5 minutes at peak and 10 minutes off peak, however.

QED IMO is not central enough to properly serve Centretown and the Glebe. A Bank Street subway would be much more effective. Montréal road is much too narrow to support trams or even bus lanes. That corridor too, would need a subway at some point.

A Transitway from Blair, north to Gatineau, hitting CSIS, La Cité Collégiale, Montfort, CFB Rockliffe, the Aviation Museum and the secteur La Cité in Gatineau would be well used and provide much needed relief to downtown.

[Acajack]

I gather that Kitchissippi's proposed southeast line (in blue) would have more than two stations?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A Carling QED route has compromised value if we are trying make our primary urban streets more accessible. I am not against the general concept except that it would need to run down Elgin.

I would also like to say that a Carling QED route in no way serves the same market as a Bank Street subway. They run more or less at right angles. Based on current transit demand, the north-south route is more important than an east-west route through that portion of the central part of the city.

Nevertheless, the ideal would be to have both routes.

In general, transit needs to be more supportive of our urban parts of the city. There is more opportunity in those locations for infill and intensification than on most of the C-Line (Westboro, Hintonburg, Lebreton excepted). In the case of the C-Line, we are trying to force intensification whether the locations are attractive or not. I think this can only take us so far.

I am really hoping that we do a turn around and think more of bringing quality transit to the people instead of trying to force people to transit.

I look at strong intensification plans for Elmvale, Westgate, Herongate, and south Bank Street, and we are not significantly supporting these opportunities with enhanced transit. Those locations also have the added value of offering potential for housing for people of modest income.

I don't disagree. A strong N-S route should be the next priority. The QED route is inferior in those terms. That said, it does provide access to perhaps the key destination on Bank (Lansdowne) and would certainly improve transit connections for the south part of the Glebe, Old Ottawa East (via the bridge) and Old Ottawa South.

It also serves a lot of the same market as a Bank St. subway (Golden Triangle, most of the Glebe and OOS). The advantage is that with the Trillium line to the west of Bank, it is easier to justify that line to serve the east side of Bank. It also provides much improved frequent coverage in under-served areas and would be the best link between downtown and the Civic hospital (new and old)

Not saying it's likely, as there are lots of hurdles, but I do think it has a better chance than the subway, at least in the medium term.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I gather that Kitchissippi's proposed southeast line (in blue) would have more than two stations?

That route takes you to low density industrial focused around incoming and outgoing trucks. Not exactly a transit destination.

[swimmer_spe]

I wonder when the central part of the LRT will end up liek the Central Transitway - congested. Hopefully there are plans to add a second run across that will remove the branches.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I gather that Kitchissippi's proposed southeast line (in blue) would have more than two stations?

Yeah, I was thinking something like five, but Hurdman might need to have new south platforms, linked to a shared sheltered bus/tram platform/loop.

(click for large)

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Yeah, I was thinking something like five, but Hurdman might need to have new south platforms, linked to a shared sheltered bus/tram platform/loop.

(click for large)

OMG you would use the new highway right-of-way through that neighbourhood? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN! What would the NIMBY's say?!?!? for shame!

Actually this is amazing. It needs to be built. Everyone driving their little hearts out, saving $20k on housing by living in the middle of nowhere and commuting to their funcionnaire jobs downtown can park at Walkley and take the train into the city, to relieve the stress of Marie-France from Cassellman.