Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For sure, prior to the shut-down, Carleton was the main destination, but with major TOD, a massive new health care complex, an arena, the library and new development, that will change.

1. While there are/will be some TOD on the Trillium Line, there aren't all that many opportunities, certainly not enough to fill trains. While TOD is certainly good, you need a massive number of units to provide significant increase in ridership relative to capacity*,
2. The hospital will be another destination (like Carleton) and won't generate that many peak Bayview/Confederation transfers,
3. There will be a post event surge created by the arena, but once again, it won't generate that many peak Bayview/Confederation transfers,
4. Yes employees at the library may contribute to peak Bayview/Confederation transfers, but how many people are you talking about? Users of the library are more likely to travel off peak. Great of increasing utilization but won't cause overloading.
5. Time will tell what other developments occur, but I don't see them pushing the needle on peak Bayview/Confederation transfers significantly.

* Using the Claridge Icon as an example, it has 320 units and the Trillium line will have a capacity of between 2500 & 3000 PPHPD. Even if every unit has 1 person taking transit downtown in a given peak period hour (unlikely), that is less than a 15% increase in ridership relative to capacity, and that is for the tallest building in Ottawa. In reality the number will be much smaller as not everyone works downtown, takes transit, and travels during peak periods.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

1. While there are/will be some TOD on the Trillium Line, there aren't all that many opportunities, certainly not enough to fill trains. While TOD is certainly good, you need a massive number of units to provide significant increase in ridership relative to capacity*,
2. The hospital will be another destination (like Carleton) and won't generate that many peak Bayview/Confederation transfers,
3. There will be a post event surge created by the arena, but once again, it won't generate that many peak Bayview/Confederation transfers,
4. Yes employees at the library may contribute to peak Bayview/Confederation transfers, but how many people are you talking about? Users of the library are more likely to travel off peak. Great of increasing utilization but won't cause overloading.
5. Time will tell what other developments occur, but I don't see them pushing the needle on peak Bayview/Confederation transfers significantly.

* Using the Claridge Icon as an example, it has 320 units and the Trillium line will have a capacity of between 2500 & 3000 PPHPD. Even if every unit has 1 person taking transit downtown in a given peak period hour (unlikely), that is less than a 15% increase in ridership relative to capacity, and that is for the tallest building in Ottawa. In reality the number will be much smaller as not everyone works downtown, takes transit, and travels during peak periods.

Gladstone Village alone will be over 1k units, not counting other OCH projects. The bread factory redevelopment is another 800+. At Dow's, Claridge has another 400 units planned, Richcraft has 1k+ as well. 175 at Preston Square. Another 500 in the gravel parking lot. That's 4k+ units at two stations, and I'm missing quite a few projects.

A scenario where an entire Trillium train will transfer to eastbound Line 1 is just about inconceivable, but even just 100 people is putting significant pressure, and that will probably be common day 1.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Gladstone Village alone will be over 1k units, not counting other OCH projects. The bread factory redevelopment is another 800+. At Dow's, Claridge has another 400 units planned, Richcraft has 1k+ as well. 175 at Preston Square. Another 500 in the gravel parking lot. That's 4k+ units at two stations, and I'm missing quite a few projects.

That's more than I was expecting, but I still feel that most of them will not be commuting to/from downtown (a large number will likely be going to/from Carleton (especially), the new hospital, or other other non-downtown location). Even for those who do, there are other routes that might be better than adding a transfer (either walking to Bayview to even out the surge or taking one of the buses that go downtown).

Originally Posted by J.OT13

A scenario where an entire Trillium train will transfer to eastbound Line 1 is just about inconceivable, but even just 100 people is putting significant pressure, and that will probably be common day 1.

I am not sure what the threshold of transfers per train that would put significant pressure on the station. A lot depends on the number of people on eastbound trains transferring to Line 2 (to go to Carleton or other destination along the line). I suspect more people will be transferring from Line 1 to Line 2 (AM Peak), than the other way around, though admittedly there are probably 3 or 4 Line 1 trains for each Line 2 train.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's more than I was expecting, but I still feel that most of them will not be commuting to/from downtown (a large number will likely be going to/from Carleton (especially), the new hospital, or other other non-downtown location). Even for those who do, there are other routes that might be better than adding a transfer (either walking to Bayview to even out the surge or taking one of the buses that go downtown).

For sure, those are some crazy numbers. It's impossible to know what travel patters will be even knowing what's in the pipeline. I'd be more concerned pre-pandemic than I am now, but I'm still pretty confident one day, 10-20 years, we'll have to address it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure what the threshold of transfers per train that would put significant pressure on the station. A lot depends on the number of people on eastbound trains transferring to Line 2 (to go to Carleton or other destination along the line). I suspect more people will be transferring from Line 1 to Line 2 (AM Peak), than the other way around, though admittedly there are probably 3 or 4 Line 1 trains for each Line 2 train.

That's a good point. It might balance out and then-some.

What I'm most concerned about at the moment is the capacity of the single platform at Dow's Lake. It will certainly suffer from overcrowding issue once the new Civic opens.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And Bloor-Yonge is a mess. The relief line should have been build decades ago. Even then, not quite the same situation. Bloor-Yonge has two transfers, and the transfer is further outside of downtown.

It took about 40 years to get to that point. It also took so many destinations to be located in a small area for that to happen. Ottawa seems to be smart in how the major employers are not afraid to move to another part of the city. Case in point, DND moving out of the core.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

1) Agreed, we probably have a few decades.

2) I'd oppose converting the SE Transitway as it will never reach capacity. That money is better invested elsewhere.

3) My preferred solution as well, sometime before 2050 (at least shovel ready, not necessarily built).

Richard's proposal is certainly an interesting one, and would have been worth looking at had things turned out differently, for example if O'Brien's proposal of building the N/S without the downtown section had been approved.

At this point, considering ridership of Line 2 could easily reach 30k+ within 5 years, any sort of conversion to electric or low-floor would (at least should) be a non-starter. Extended shut-downs should never again be even considered. Any incremental improvement (double tracking Walkley, Dow's Lake Stations or any other section to increase frequency) should be done with weekend shut-downs at most.

1) Id think half a century. By then, one would expect a Bank St subway or some other solution that would access other parts of the city and give them rapid transit too.
They may even build another E/W route through the core to route one of the branches onto.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

. . .
They may even build another E/W route through the core to route one of the branches onto.

It seems to me that the plan for the Aylmer Tram is exactly that; to build another west-east transit corridor through the core. Or, at least, into the core. That is why I am suggesting that 1.5 km of track could be used to connect to it – to leverage the cost of the Ottawa section of the Tram line for something other than a periodic tram. Remember, the suggestion is for the Line 2/4 trains to travel along that section of track, too; interlined with the trams.

With the suggested extension, the Feds (who will undoubtedly be tapped to put in the lion’s share of the cost) can offer benefits to BOTH sides of the river, and this inches toward a direct link from downtown Ottawa to the airport; as well as a single transfer to the Ottawa airport from Gatineau. (Assuming that Line 4 is extended north.)

Having a link from the south to downtown, even at a 12-minute frequency, would help take some of the load during the construction of a Bank Street Subway. (I still think that it was very short-sighted of the city to not have dug a bit deeper when Bank Street was being re-built so that pre-case tunnel rings could be added. We could have had a tunnel most of the way to Billings Bridge for only a few hundred million dollars more, at the time. Alas . . . spilt milk, and all that.)

The view that connecting Line 2/4 to downtown will benefit few is, perhaps, somewhat pessimistic. There are still locations downtown that draw people. The Byward Market, for instance. Carleton U. students would have a single seat to go from residents to ‘The Market’.

Those coming from Gatineau and heading south, say, to Confederation Heights, would have a convenient single transfer, without a two-block walk.

Those are just two examples. I expect others can come up with more.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yeah, it was one of those false economies. Following the BRT was supposed to save money, but so much has needed reconstruction (or will need it in the near future) that a new route probably would have been cheaper.

Given the cost escalations we've seen, both in Ottawa and elsewhere in Ontario, there's almost zero chance that any new route would have been cheaper. Where else would they have have had a surface corridor? Anything other than repurposing the Transitway and using highway medians would require tunnelling or elevation for grade separation which would have been (and would still be) massively more expensive. Even back then the tunneled portions (with stations) were averaging something like $250M/km with most surface construction running at $80-100M/km. Today, the tunneled portions are probably at $300+M/km.

The only change I'd argue (from what I remember around consultations I attended at the time) is that they really stretched to reach Tunney's Pasture. The argument was that they wanted to save a lot of people a single transfer from Bayview to Tunney's, given how many people worked there. In hindsight, saving Tunney's for Stage 2, might have given them enough to do a much better job with Stage 1. And not put off things like rebuilding St-Laurent or going with fully automated trains with enclosed stations (like the REM).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given the cost escalations we've seen, both in Ottawa and elsewhere in Ontario, there's almost zero chance that any new route would have been cheaper. Where else would they have have had a surface corridor? Anything other than repurposing the Transitway and using highway medians would require tunnelling or elevation for grade separation which would have been (and would still be) massively more expensive. Even back then the tunneled portions (with stations) were averaging something like $250M/km with most surface construction running at $80-100M/km. Today, the tunneled portions are probably at $300+M/km.

The only change I'd argue (from what I remember around consultations I attended at the time) is that they really stretched to reach Tunney's Pasture. The argument was that they wanted to save a lot of people a single transfer from Bayview to Tunney's, given how many people worked there. In hindsight, saving Tunney's for Stage 2, might have given them enough to do a much better job with Stage 1. And not put off things like rebuilding St-Laurent or going with fully automated trains with enclosed stations (like the REM).

Median of the Queensway (which as widened anyway as part of this project) would seem to be to be a possibility. That is what they ended up doing east of Blair anyway. That would have replaced a number of tight curves with one gentle curve. Elevated in the corridor (like REM) would be another possibility.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Median of the Queensway (which as widened anyway as part of this project) would seem to be to be a possibility. That is what they ended up doing east of Blair anyway. That would have replaced a number of tight curves with one gentle curve. Elevated in the corridor (like REM) would be another possibility.

Where exactly would this go? Down Wellington and Rideau to Vanier to the 417? That above ground section would be 7 or 8km. So maybe $600 million ? Geez that makes a lot of sense actually We keep transit way and Vanier and East Rideau would get a station each. But Elevated anywhere but a median would have been all out war in Ottawa. Look at how much we are spending to shallow tunnel on the linear "park". REM to the east end of Montreal was also killed by opposition.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Where exactly would this go? Down Wellington and Rideau to Vanier to the 417? That above ground section would be 7 or 8km. So maybe $600 million ? Geez that makes a lot of sense actually We keep transit way and Vanier and East Rideau would get a station each. But Elevated anywhere but a median would have been all out war in Ottawa. Look at how much we are spending to shallow tunnel on the linear "park". REM to the east end of Montreal was also killed by opposition.

It would need to be a subway through Vanier. Elevated rail in dense urban areas is a blight. Where Montreal Road is much wider (east of St. Laurent), it could be elevated. We killed this idea when we decided to eliminate a roughed in connection just east of Rideau station to save money.

I was also thinking of the hospital corridor, which has a long standing transit corridor that connected to the Nicholas Street interchange. A bit of this has now been built into the hospital campus. When Phase 2 was being planned, there was also brief consideration of the Innes Road corridor for the Orleans extension as the main retail and growth area of Orleans.

I find that highway running LRT has less potential. Vancouver's Skytrain does not follow expressways and has been an overwhelming success. REM will follow expressways in many areas. We will see how successful it will be when fully opened.

I would have not built a Queensway based Transitway replacement, as it is just a variation of the existing Transitway with limited new ridership potential. A new route should have created a second rapid transit route to the east, which many on this board have dreamed about.

[lrt's friend]

I have commented even before the Confederation Line opened about the lack of resiliency. Even though we have parallel roads going east, we have little and very infrequent transit service. It is automatically assumed that people should walk or transfer to rail.

But with the frequency of rail failure, should we not offer an alternative which would also facilitate local trips? I am thinking of a frequent route that starts at Trim and follows St. Joseph Boulevard (there is no through transit route on St. Joseph) and then Ogilvie and Coventry Roads. I am not sure if it should go downtown or terminate at Hurdman Station. Nevertheless, this route parallels LRT but also offers closer local service to countless residences and businesses than can be offered by the limited number of LRT stations.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It would need to be a subway through Vanier. Elevated rail in dense urban areas is a blight. Where Montreal Road is much wider (east of St. Laurent), it could be elevated. We killed this idea when we decided to eliminate a roughed in connection just east of Rideau station to save money.

I was also thinking of the hospital corridor, which has a long standing transit corridor that connected to the Nicholas Street interchange. A bit of this has now been built into the hospital campus. When Phase 2 was being planned, there was also brief consideration of the Innes Road corridor for the Orleans extension as the main retail and growth area of Orleans.

I find that highway running LRT has less potential. Vancouver's Skytrain does not follow expressways and has been an overwhelming success. REM will follow expressways in many areas. We will see how successful it will be when fully opened.

I would have not built a Queensway based Transitway replacement, as it is just a variation of the existing Transitway with limited new ridership potential. A new route should have created a second rapid transit route to the east, which many on this board have dreamed about.

I guess you've proved my point and you're LRT's friend. (I know that is a bit dated for you as a proud suburbanite now) It absolutely doesn't need to be a "blight". Modern systems are not the L in Chicago. We can't afford a tunnel so will get nothing. Vanier Parkway could certainly accommodate an elevated train and it would not be as much a blight as the current near highway stroad that is there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I guess you've proved my point and you're LRT's friend. (I know that is a bit dated for you as a proud suburbanite now) It absolutely doesn't need to be a "blight". Modern systems are not the L in Chicago. We can't afford a tunnel so will get nothing. Vanier Parkway could certainly accommodate an elevated train and it would not be as much a blight as the current near highway stroad that is there.

Vanier Parkway is indeed a different story. The centre median could handle an elevated guideway, but, where does such a line go from there?

I am just thinking of the practicality of an elevated rail line on such a narrow street as Montreal Road in Vanier. Where do the support pillars go and how do stations fit in and still permit multiple uses at street level? We are already short of space and any facing buildings would be really close to the guideway. I am not comparing this to the Chicago L, but still .......... The Skytrain followed abandoned electric rail lines and where it goes through existing urban neighbourhoods, it goes underground. I think this is a necessity.

I have lived my life as a suburbanite so my views reflect that. I am not ashamed of that. I need to view the city understanding that while we need to support urbanism, our city also has to work for the majority who live in a suburban environment. I have argued for much better suburbs, but many just consider the suburbs a lost cause. We have heard it on this board. That kind of thinking does not work as Ottawa is one city and it all has to work together. We can compare Ottawa (badly) to Amsterdam where better planning includes the suburbs. We cannot go anywhere in that direction if we want the suburbs to be some sort of hell hole. We can do better for everybody.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It would need to be a subway through Vanier. Elevated rail in dense urban areas is a blight. Where Montreal Road is much wider (east of St. Laurent), it could be elevated. We killed this idea when we decided to eliminate a roughed in connection just east of Rideau station to save money.

I was also thinking of the hospital corridor, which has a long standing transit corridor that connected to the Nicholas Street interchange. A bit of this has now been built into the hospital campus. When Phase 2 was being planned, there was also brief consideration of the Innes Road corridor for the Orleans extension as the main retail and growth area of Orleans.

I find that highway running LRT has less potential. Vancouver's Skytrain does not follow expressways and has been an overwhelming success. REM will follow expressways in many areas. We will see how successful it will be when fully opened.

I would have not built a Queensway based Transitway replacement, as it is just a variation of the existing Transitway with limited new ridership potential. A new route should have created a second rapid transit route to the east, which many on this board have dreamed about.

So, elevated rail through urban areas is how Vancouver's skytrain is when it isn't in a heavy rail corridor or next to a very busy road. The conditions of being in a rail cut versus being in a highway median aren't much different.

(sorry for the sizes, stupid Imgur)

OH NO! BLIGHT!


OH NO! MEDIAN RUNNING ON A STROAD!


OH NO! IN A RAIL CUT MAKING HTE STATION AS INACCESSIBLE AS ANY IN A HIGHWAY MEDIAN FROM THE ENITRE NORTH/EAST SIDE!


What matters is connectivity.

[J.OT13]

Rideau to Blair, via Bathgate, would be fantastic. Hit up the densest corridor in the City, a major hospital (our hospitals are all poorly served by transit at the moment), the last public post-secondary institution with no rapid transit and major Federal employment nodes. And that corridor would not be as dependent of commuter ridership than the current Line 1 is today.

I'd have it underground from Rideau to St. Laurent, as LRT's Friend suggested, as that corridor is quite narrow. Elevated to Bathgate, surface down Bathgate along the NRC/CSIS strip and elevated crossing Ogilvie to Blair Station. It could continue to Orleans via Innes or the Cumberland Transitway. Innes preferably as an elevated Metro, or grade separated median with underpasses.

As much as I like the idea of a Bank subway, I think this one should get priority as it hits more destination, more density and more potential density with fewer heritage assets slowing down development.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

(sorry for the sizes, stupid Imgur)

Just put an “h” (for huge) at the end of the filename (before the .jpg or .png extension)

i.imgur.com/Cbto5xsh.png


i.imgur.com/fwnUBGbh.jpg

[Truenorth00]

Elevated is cheaper than underground. But it's not cheaper than just building on the surface. If the website Confederation Line was built elevated or tunneled, it's very likely the line would never have left the Greenbelt, because of cost.

As for any line along Rideau and Montreal, it doesn't have enough demand to justify grade separation and it never will. It would be a tram replacing several bus routes. Just tunnel where necessary and run the rest in the middle of the road. See Eglinton Crosstown or Hurontario or Waterloo Ion for inspiration.

I'll never understand the fascination in this forum with insisting on every single line being 100% grade separated. Especially given how cheap the residents of this city are. Champagne tastes on beer budgets. But also who wants to waste time going up and down escalators just to go a few blocks?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have lived my life as a suburbanite so my views reflect that. I am not ashamed of that. I need to view the city understanding that while we need to support urbanism, our city also has to work for the majority who live in a suburban environment. I have argued for much better suburbs, but many just consider the suburbs a lost cause. We have heard it on this board. That kind of thinking does not work as Ottawa is one city and it all has to work together. We can compare Ottawa (badly) to Amsterdam where better planning includes the suburbs. We cannot go anywhere in that direction if we want the suburbs to be some sort of hell hole. We can do better for everybody.

The suburbs choose to be a "lost cause". There are umpteen things we could to to make them less land-, energy- and finance-inefficient, but the people who live in them won't accept any changes, and certainly nothing like the changes that occur in city centres whether city-centre residents want those changes or not. (Not that incumbent residents should have any such veto in any event, but that anti-change political reality is much stronger in the suburbs than downtown.)

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, elevated rail through urban areas is how Vancouver's skytrain is when it isn't in a heavy rail corridor or next to a very busy road. The conditions of being in a rail cut versus being in a highway median aren't much different.

The Victoria Diversion right of way from building-line to building-line is much more generous than what is available to work with on the bottlenecked portion of Montreal Road.

Not that it matters, because urban transit doesn't matter at all in this shell of a city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The suburbs choose to be a "lost cause". There are umpteen things we could to to make them less land-, energy- and finance-inefficient, but the people who live in them won't accept any changes, and certainly nothing like the changes that occur in city centres whether city-centre residents want those changes or not. (Not that incumbent residents should have any such veto in any event, but that anti-change political reality is much stronger in the suburbs than downtown.)

It is the city planners and developers who design our suburbs, not individuals. Individuals choose the type of home and the general environment (parks, schools etc.). New suburbs have a much greater diversity of housing styles than in the past. What is lacking is making allowances for efficient transit and better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. We don't do a good job at making allowances for bus lanes, continuous segregated cycling routes and pedestrian access to shopping, schools, and parks. When we don't do these things, we default to autocentric design and massive boulevards and the need for speed cameras to control speeds.