Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

How many buses are replaced by one train? Ok, so a bus costs 90$ per hour, but if we take 3 off the road and replace the service by one train, you know what happens?

If the entire Ottawa Transitway was replaced by trains, and express routes mostly replaced by high-frequency local routes, I estimate it would allow them to cut the fleet by about 300 buses (including about 150 articulated buses). Assuming the average disposed bus is 12 years old, they could probably get about $100,000 for it (in 2009 dollars) if they sold it used (a bit less for the standard buses and a bit more for the articulated buses). The disposal of them would net them about $30 million (enough today for about 60 new standard buses or 40 new articulated buses).

That would by 2030 make the bus fleet about 800-900 (instead of about 1,100) standard buses and 200 or so (instead of 350 or more) articulated buses. I would personally have about 50-100 smaller buses - between 26' and 30' - for routes and times with lower ridership to allow for a somewhat increased frequency.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

We could also demand to every citizen to stop driving and ask them to bike everywhere in order to save on road repairs and expansion.

Concerning the cost; Ottawa's share is not 5 billion and you know it.
A large injection of money into the system also has the whimsical effect of providing jobs and stimulating the economy.

On the non financial front; you cannot deny that the core is choking with buses. I think that most will agree that pollution is not very fun.

What no one has asked (the unions would scream but it might not be a bad idea): should the private sector help out?

[Richard Eade]

Hmmm, it is true, Andrew Haydon’s article is not a detailed engineering document, but what is the audience it is aimed at - the general public who has not necessarily been following the whole BRT-LRT debate. Yes, he over stated some things and did not provide any of the benefits of LRT, but he was not trying to present anything that was balanced.

Back in the 1970s, Mr. Haydon and others did an evaluation of which technology was best suited for Ottawa and the winner was BRT. There were compelling arguments then, and most of those arguments are still valid today. I am not sure that if we were building a system from scratch today that BRT would be the winner, but it might be, and Andy certainly believes that it would be. He believes that the correct choice was made in the beginning. Unfortunately, he also believes that if everyone had seen the facts, as he did, then they would come to the same conclusion he did in the ‘70s. For him, based on his own criteria, it is a black and white issue and there shouldn’t be any debate; BRT has more benefits.

Randall Denely’s article appears to be written from a Staff document which argues why the choices they made were the best ones. He has not, from the looks of it, put any real thought into the issue either. This is unfortunate since some of the things that Staff, and Denely, are saying is highly suspect.

For example, Denley parrots the Staff claim that the average station spacing in Ottawa is 35 metres greater than Toronto and Montreal. This is directly from the Staff report

Existing subway systems in Toronto and Montreal have stations in their downtown spaced at an average distance of approximately 500 metres. These stations typically have a single primary access point from the platform level, with multiple accesses provided to the street from a single mezzanine level. Between LeBreton and Campus, stations on the DOTT are spaced 535 metres apart; on average. While this provides a slightly wider station spacing than that found in Toronto and Montreal, it is noteworthy that each DOTT station will have at least two major accesses points from the platform level, providing increased coverage for each station compared to downtown stations found in Toronto and Montreal. Population and employment densities in downtown Toronto and Montreal are also significantly higher than those of downtown Ottawa, with greater potential for increased future development.

Now, ignore the part about Toronto and Montreal having only a single access point to the Platform but multiple accesses to the street from the mezzanines; while Ottawa will have two major accesses from the platform to the street. This ignores the new laws which require at least two access from the platform; and that Ottawa will also have a mezzanine between the platform and the street - there really is no difference here.

The point I'm trying to make is the following: I think I have posted this before, but I used Google Earth and roughly measured the centre to centre distances of stations in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. I used centre to centre because it removes the affect of longer or shorter platforms.

Recommended for Ottawa:
LeBreton - DT-west = 835m
DT-west - DT-east = 670m
DT-east - Rideau = 545m
Rideau - Campus = 1180m
-----------------------------------
This gives an average centre to centre distance of 807m.

For Toronto:
Union - King = 370m
King - Queen = 380m
Queen - Dundas = 455m
Union - St. Andrew = 515m
St. Andrew - Osgoode = 310m
------------------------------------
The average centre to centre distance is 406m. About half of the Ottawa spacing!

For Montreal:
Peel - McGill = 430m
McGill - Place des Arts = 500m
Place des Arts - Saint Laurent = 450m
Place d'Armes - Champ de Mars = 495m
--------------------------------------
Average centre to centre is 469m. Closer, but still almost 340m shorter than Ottawa's centre to centre spacing.

You will notice that Staff claim a DOTT average distance of 535 metres which is shorter than the shortest distance that I measured. Also they claim a distance of 500 metres for downtown stations in Toronto and Montreal, but I don’t get that either. So Staff seem to be using numbers which I don’t think can be substantiated and Randall simply takes them without verifying their veracity.

For anyone to take sides based on either of these articles would be for them to take an ignorant viewpoint. Neither of these articles present a good case for their side.

Each technology and each part of them has been developed with some compromise; none of them is perfect. There are valid arguments that can be made for and against any thing.

Fortunately there is really no need to actually evaluate which technology would be the better one since Council has already taken the arbitrary direction that the tunnel will be bored and it will contain LRT.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

And???...
No system is perfect... in fact, nothing is.
Buses crash, cars run over people, cyclist run into old ladies and even pedestrians cause deadly accidents. That's life.

Responding to the bus pile-up picture. I agree, no system is perfect.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

We could also demand to every citizen to stop driving and ask them to bike everywhere in order to save on road repairs and expansion.

Concerning the cost; Ottawa's share is not 5 billion and you know it.
A large injection of money into the system also has the whimsical effect of providing jobs and stimulating the economy.

On the non financial front; you cannot deny that the core is choking with buses. I think that most will agree that pollution is not very fun.

I like the bike idea, certainly more can be done in that area.

You may not know this, but taxpayers pay for expenditures from every level of gov't. And even at "only" 1/3, that's $3,300 per household! For an LRT service I still have to pay for.

Andrew Hatdon says build bus tunnels downtown which could take care of not only Ottawa buses, but Gatineau buses also which are not currently part of the LRT plan at all.

Converting all our buses to hybrids would likely reduce pollution and GHG more than spending all our cash on an LRT system and in so doing leave all the feeder buses as diesel. Trolley buses along the transitway could also work.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Recommended for Ottawa:
LeBreton - DT-west = 835m
DT-west - DT-east = 670m
DT-east - Rideau = 545m
Rideau - Campus = 1180m
-----------------------------------
This gives an average centre to centre distance of 807m.

For Toronto:
Union - King = 370m
King - Queen = 380m
Queen - Dundas = 455m
Union - St. Andrew = 515m
St. Andrew - Osgoode = 310m
------------------------------------
The average centre to centre distance is 406m. About half of the Ottawa spacing!

For Montreal:
Peel - McGill = 430m
McGill - Place des Arts = 500m
Place des Arts - Saint Laurent = 450m
Place d'Armes - Champ de Mars = 495m
--------------------------------------
Average centre to centre is 469m. Closer, but still almost 340m shorter than Ottawa's centre to centre spacing.

I wouldn't include the Campus station: Without it, the average is around 680m.

[Beatrix]

^ Agreed.

It would be more accurate to compare downtown destinations only. DT West, DT East, and Rideau.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

I wouldn't include the Campus station: Without it, the average is around 680m.

I would agree, too, but my point is that the statement the Staff gave is "Between LeBreton and Campus, stations on the DOTT are spaced 535 metres apart". This is a mathematical impossibility, yet people like the Councillors and Denely don't even give it a second thought. The same goes for the Toronto and Montreal numbers; it looks like the numbers were pulled out of a hat, yet people believe them.

When Denely and others use the Staff generated numbers to support the Staff's plan, it really confirms nothing except that they haven't done any research.

Any way, if we remove the Campus Station, the centre to centre distance is 680 metres. Would you say that that is comparable to Toronto's 406 metres or Montreal's 469 metres?

What if we just used DT-W to DT-E and DT-E to Rideau, for an average of 607 metre; is that comparable?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Personally, I think that these are both dubious arguments.

LRT vehicles can be (and regularly are) equipped with battery backup systems providing ample time to finish a route during a power blackout. And they would be doing so on a dedicated RoW, meaning minimal delays, unlike buses operating on roads with all the traffic signals out of order.

See:
http://www.railway-technology.com/co...ication/saft2/

During an ice storm, no transit system is going to be safely operational, except a fully-underground one. If ice buildup on the wires is a concern, just design them in a robust manner. They haven't been built yet, so we have plenty of time to plan for this.

For an engineer, Haydon has a disappointing sense of the the practical.

How long did it take for all those hydro lines to fail? Seconds? Minutes? Hours? Days?

In a few cases it was hours, buy mainly days. We had days and days for ice to build up. And this was on static power lines not designed for being subjected to stresses like LRT lines would be.

Now let's look at this rationally: if trains are using the tracks every 10-15 minutes, can ice even build up? Well... no. The vibrations from the passing pantographs will shake off any minor build-up of water and ice. So the solution to an ice storm is to keep running the trains all day and night. If power failures elsewhere mean that the trains can't operate, then get a diesel maintenance vehicle and push the electric LRVs around, or failing that get a couple of hy-rail vehicles, rig up a fake pantograph and run it up and down the tracks. The point being is this is not some sort of insurmountable problem.

It's pathetic that an engineer can't think of this kind of thing. I thought of it within moments of reading his paragraph on it.

Haydon's "article" seems to me to be a very disjointed series of observations, only some which are relevant to the LRT debate. He seems unable to make a compelling case against LRT, and maybe that's because in this case, there isn't one. Methinks that Old Uncle Andy is just bitter because he sees his legacy project being undermined.

That was pretty much my assessment as well.

[lrt's friend]

There is absolutlely no reason why LRT and BRT cannot co-exist in Ottawa including downtown. We can benefit from the advantages of both types of systems if we were to let it happen.

As far as I know, there is no big movement to convert BRT to LRT in other cities, unless you are talking about Calgary style BRT, which isn't really rapid transit at all. When other cities using BRT add LRT or a subway, it is usually a new service being added that is supplementing existing rapid transit.

There are examples in many places where rail rapid transit was abandoned while under construction. There are countless examples of operating rail transit being abandoned and replaced with buses. A recent example of the former was the Eglinton subway that was actually filled in.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are examples in many places where rail rapid transit was abandoned while under construction. There are countless examples of operating rail transit being abandoned and replaced with buses. A recent example of the former was the Eglinton subway that was actually filled in.

Saying "many places" and "countless examples" is such hyperbole. Work on the Eglington Subway was less than a year digging a hole for the Allen station and was a political move not a transit use issue. In reality, none of the cities that have implemented or re-ignited rail transit in the last 50 years have had buyer's remorse.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Franky

I like the bike idea, certainly more can be done in that area.

You may not know this, but taxpayers pay for expenditures from every level of gov't. And even at "only" 1/3, that's $3,300 per household! For an LRT service I still have to pay for.

Andrew Haydon says build bus tunnels downtown which could take care of not only Ottawa buses, but Gatineau buses also which are not currently part of the LRT plan at all.

Converting all our buses to hybrids would likely reduce pollution and GHG more than spending all our cash on an LRT system and in so doing leave all the feeder buses as diesel. Trolley buses along the transitway could also work.

True... I think that you have solid arguments.

I would like to point out to you that my initial comment on Haydon's article was to hilight his lack of credibility due the arguments he used to prove his point and not to knock BRT. He basically discredits himself by saying things like 2 10 meter tunnels at half the cost of a 20 meter would do the job and they could be used for brt. Sure, the cost cutting solution is awesome but wait a minute, he never talks about the chaos this would create a rush hour with hundreds of buses using them.

About the cost; sure, this is a very expensive project... but what is the cost of not building this system? There are cold hard facts that we have to consider.... growth, traffic, ease of use, pollution, densification...
I used to live in Montreal. At first, I loved the metro,... but eventually hated it. I much rather take buses and see the surroundings. But can we imagine downtown Mtl without the metro? No. And I dare compare Mtl with Ottawa, at least in numbers because we will get there.
I also lived 2 years in a little known city in Thailand called Chiang Mai (best place in the world). Chiang Mai has about half the population of Ottawa and has no lrt. The pollution for such a small city is incredible. Its a perfect time for Chiang Mai to switch to lrt, but heck, they have no money, so people deal with the coughing and the chocking and they all wear little white masks. As a side note, I regularly went to Bangkok. Its a megapolis of 15 million which just got a new skytrain and one subway line. The problem is that the government waited soooo long to make their moves and let me tell you Bkk makes Toronto look like Belville. You can be stuck at a red light for 30 minutes. Anyways, I digress.

So, in 40 years from now, when Ottawa (I mean everything) will more than likely be inhabitated by nearly 3 million people and petrol will be at about 300$ a barrel if we are lucky, what are we going to do then? And at what cost? The system here is already bursting at the seams. Putting the craziness underground will solve the problem? Also, how much are hybrid buses? Are they cheaper/more expensive to fix? How about the spare parts? How long does this techonology last? These are not rhetorical questions... I just want to know.

My feeling is that it's time to make a switch from frequent low capacity loads to somewhat less frequent but higher capacity loads.

Cheers for now.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

True... I think that you have solid arguments.

I may have come out a bit too strongly, it's become a habit with so many rail fanatics in the mix that don't seem to even look at other options.

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

I would like to point out to you that my initial comment on Haydon's article was to hilight his lack of credibility due the arguments he used to prove his point and not to knock BRT. He basically discredits himself by saying things like 2 10 meter tunnels at half the cost of a 20 meter would do the job and they could be used for brt. Sure, the cost cutting solution is awesome but wait a minute, he never talks about the chaos this would create a rush hour with hundreds of buses using them.

I don't know if you've been following this from the beginning, but when Delcan presented the BRT option vs. the LRT option, they came in at about the same cost. Delcan used 20 foot tunnels in it's estimates for the BRT version which inflated prices. They also, it seems, grossly underestimated the cost of the LRT "option".

Why would there be chaos? It would seem to me that a downtown section without interference from other traffic, pre-paid fare zones in the stations and other improvements a tunnel would allow would make bus flow much more streamlined.

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

About the cost; sure, this is a very expensive project... but what is the cost of not building this system? There are cold hard facts that we have to consider.... growth, traffic, ease of use, pollution, densification...
I used to live in Montreal. At first, I loved the metro,... but eventually hated it. I much rather take buses and see the surroundings. But can we imagine downtown Mtl without the metro? No. And I dare compare Mtl with Ottawa, at least in numbers because we will get there.
I also lived 2 years in a little known city in Thailand called Chiang Mai (best place in the world). Chiang Mai has about half the population of Ottawa and has no lrt. The pollution for such a small city is incredible. Its a perfect time for Chiang Mai to switch to lrt, but heck, they have no money, so people deal with the coughing and the chocking and they all wear little white masks. As a side note, I regularly went to Bangkok. Its a megapolis of 15 million which just got a new skytrain and one subway line. The problem is that the government waited soooo long to make their moves and let me tell you Bkk makes Toronto look like Belville. You can be stuck at a red light for 30 minutes. Anyways, I digress.

Ottawa is a special because there is a height restriction on building in the city core which means that population density in the core will not increase as much as it might in places like Toronto or Montreal. Buses will work fine since we will never get numbers that require heavy rail. If we ever do, for some inexplicable reason, the transitway/tunnel can then be converted and the numbers will justify the cost.

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

So, in 40 years from now, when Ottawa (I mean everything) will more than likely be inhabitated by nearly 3 million people and petrol will be at about 300$ a barrel if we are lucky, what are we going to do then? And at what cost? The system here is already bursting at the seams. Putting the craziness underground will solve the problem? Also, how much are hybrid buses? Are they cheaper/more expensive to fix? How about the spare parts? How long does this techonology last? These are not rhetorical questions... I just want to know.

When Population reaches 3 million in Ottawa, the growth will not be downtown because of the height restrictions, it will be somewhere else.

Hybrid buses currently cost more and reliability cannot be guaranteed (since none have been running for a lifetime yet). But Electric motors tends to outlive Diesel engines and the engines in Hybrids tend to run only at optimal speed, so in theory, they should last longer. Hybrids (will) have other advantages, quieter, less pollution, smoother ride...

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

My feeling is that it's time to make a switch from frequent low capacity loads to somewhat less frequent but higher capacity loads.

Cheers for now.

Doing so introduces another transfer to trips. There is no reason why the busway could not be used in this way by having 3 buses follow each other and act as a single unit. This is just an operational change. Also, at off-peak hours, direct routes can be used whereas we would be stuck with LRT. One more, BRT allows Express buses which skip all but a few stations this is possible because stops are off-line for BRT.

Cheers.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Saying "many places" and "countless examples" is such hyperbole. Work on the Eglington Subway was less than a year digging a hole for the Allen station and was a political move not a transit use issue. In reality, none of the cities that have implemented or re-ignited rail transit in the last 50 years have had buyer's remorse.

You cannot separate politics from transit decisions. After all, if it was not for politics, we might have working LRT in Ottawa this year. As far as buyer's remorse, I think Edmonton might be an example. Sure, it is now moving forward, but it did come to a standstill for a generation because of politics, the cost of the downtown tunnel, and low ridership figures. Rail transit abandonments have continued in North American cities right into the 1990s and budget constraints are continuing to threaten rail transit in certain American cities. I think it is pointless to suggest that rail transit is superior to BRT or vica versa. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and they both have well documented capacities. Ottawa is now facing a capacity issue downtown and there is a number of ways that this can be addressed. In my opinion, the capacity issue can be addressed using either BRT or rail transit.

What bothers me the most is this ongoing attitude that we must remove most buses from downtown with opening of Phase 1 of LRT. This is just going to drive people away from transit by adding unnecessary transfers to travel short distances.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_co.../index_en.html


Ottawa to Host Light Rail Transit (LRT) Technology Forum

Ottawa City Council approved the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in November 2008, including a vision for achieving an integrated, citywide transit solution to better serve communities across Ottawa. The specific type of technology needed to achieve this vision has yet to be identified.
To address the technology issue, the City of Ottawa is hosting an LRT Technology Forum on June 20, 2009 that will bring together transit experts, technology providers and key stakeholders to identify the best transit technology options for the City’s new LRT system.
Residents are invited to take part in the Forum on Saturday, June 20. Presentations by staff and technology providers will be followed by small group discussions. There will also be an opportunity to visit displays and engage with other participants and technology providers.

Read all about it…

The City is preparing several background documents that examine the technical aspects of the new LRT system. The papers will be posted as soon as they become available and all registrants will be notified by email as soon as they are posted.

Your chance to get involved starts now

Residents can contribute to the technology discussion by:

• Reading and commenting on the technical background documents as they become available - Notification of the papers will be sent via e-mail to everyone that registers for the event.
• Attending the Forum on June 20. Seating is limited for the small group discussions. Please register in advance to save your spot
• E-mailing your comments and opinions no later than July 15, 2009

Direct your questions to:

Barbara Backland
Conference Coordinator
E-mail: LRT-TLR@ottawa.ca
613-580-2424, ext. 14953




SATURDAY, June 20

Ottawa City Hall
Council Chambers, Main Floor

8 – 8:30 a.m.
Continental breakfast and registration
8 - 8:35 a.m.
Welcome
Alain Mercier, General Manager, Transit Services,
City of Ottawa
8:35 - 8:45 a.m.
Opening remarks
Deputy Mayor, City of Ottawa
8:45 – 9:10 a.m.
Plenary Session:
LRT Technology and Transportation Master Plan
Issues Facing Ottawa
Vivi Chi, Manager, City Wide Transportation,
City of Ottawa
9:10 – 9:30 a.m.
Summary of previous day’s technology discussion
9:30 - 11:10 a.m.
Transportation manufacturers’ presentations
9:30 - 9:55 p.m. - Alstom
9:55 - 10:20 p.m. - Bombardier
10:20 - 10:45 p.m. - Kinkisharyo
10:45 - 11:10 p.m. - TBD
11:10 – 11:20 p.m.
Break
11:20 – 12:30 p.m.
Public Session: Registered Table Discussion Groups
12:15 - 12:30 p.m.
Wrap-up

There are now many discussion papers with information on vehicle types, climate, automation, grade separation etc...

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_co.../index_en.html

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You cannot separate politics from transit decisions. After all, if it was not for politics, we might have working LRT in Ottawa this year. As far as buyer's remorse, I think Edmonton might be an example. Sure, it is now moving forward, but it did come to a standstill for a generation because of politics, the cost of the downtown tunnel, and low ridership figures. Rail transit abandonments have continued in North American cities right into the 1990s and budget constraints are continuing to threaten rail transit in certain American cities. I think it is pointless to suggest that rail transit is superior to BRT or vica versa. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and they both have well documented capacities. Ottawa is now facing a capacity issue downtown and there is a number of ways that this can be addressed. In my opinion, the capacity issue can be addressed using either BRT or rail transit..

By "rail transit abandonments" you mean cancelled plans, not actual ceasing of an existing rail rapid transit line. Edmonton's buyer's remorse was not "we should have had BRT instead of LRT" but rather more like "we could have done what Calgary did".

Technically there is nothing preventing Ottawa from continuing bus service into downtown as it is today even with the DOTT if we wanted to, since Albert and Slater are still useable and just implement on-street bus lanes where transitway ROWs have been taken away. This would prove to be a costly belt-and-suspenders approach that would end up undermining the LRT endeavour.

What bothers me the most is this ongoing attitude that we must remove most buses from downtown with opening of Phase 1 of LRT. This is just going to drive people away from transit by adding unnecessary transfers to travel short distances.

And what bothers me is the attitude that we can continue to invest in suburban extensions without dealing with the downtown issue. There has virtually been zero real investment in downtown transit other than the Mackenzie King bridge station.

Personally I think there is a solid business case for the downtown tunnel, and the only issue is cost. And cost is a big issue if you are talking transit as an isolated problem. If the city would stick to the Pedestrian-Cyclist-Transit user-Driver priority hierarchy, the cost justification of grade-separated transit though downtown gets amortized over a larger set of priorities. Those who think surface rail is OK forget that tens of thousands of downtown passengers will have to cross the path of trains daily, if not on the way in, certainly on the way out. It also creates obstacles for cyclists and sight-disabled people. Calgary is Calgary and Ottawa is Ottawa. They have the +15 system for pedestrians and they don't have to contend with protest marchers every other week.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Saying "many places" and "countless examples" is such hyperbole. Work on the Eglington Subway was less than a year digging a hole for the Allen station and was a political move not a transit use issue. In reality, none of the cities that have implemented or re-ignited rail transit in the last 50 years have had buyer's remorse.

I remember coming across a reference about Buffalo in a journal article. The performance of its expensive, partially-underground LRT line (barely years old at the time) was so poor that the city (region?) seriously considered shutting the line down. Then it realized if it did that it would have to repay the large amounts of federal funding that it had received to build the line. So it kept the line running.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I remember coming across a reference about Buffalo in a journal article. The performance of its expensive, partially-underground LRT line (barely years old at the time) was so poor that the city (region?) seriously considered shutting the line down. Then it realized if it did that it would have to repay the large amounts of federal funding that it had received to build the line. So it kept the line running.

Buffalo suffers from population decline, so naturally the ridership would decline as well:

Buffalo Population By Decade
Year Population % Change
1960 532,759 -8.2%
1970 462,768 -13.1%
1980 357,870 -22.7%
1990 328,123 -8.3%
2000 292,648 -10.8%
Est. 2006 257,758 -11.9%

Not even the best transit system could do anything about that.

[Suzie]

In his opinion piece, Andy Haydon should have stressed the fact that Ottawa has an opportunity to take its BRT system to the next level, which would look something like this, albeit with less crowding:


source: http://corporacionlimanorte.files.wo...nsmilenio5.jpg

That’s the front portion of a TransMilenio articulated buses with its two wide doors and levelled boarding. The rear portion of the bus has two additional wide doors. Combined with fare pre-payment, you can image how short the dwell times are with these puppies.

Anyways, from my perspective, the two best long-term options for Ottawa were: (1) surface LRT and (2) bus tunnel with a TransMilenio type system. Each had its advantages:

• Surface LRT: Substantial savings would be generated by not building a tunnel. With four surface stations, the system would be very accessible downtown. There would also be some savings in operating costs, at least during the peak periods.

• Bus tunnel with a TransMilenio type system: Conversion costs could be avoided. Riders would benefit from services that are much faster and frequent (i.e., less wait), and integration with the Rapibus system would be seamless. Outside of the central portion (i.e., Hurdman to Lebreton), local buses and ParaTranspo could continue to use the Transitway and a cross-town route (i.e., bypass of downtown) could be constructed at low cost. All of this translates into higher ridership.

A detailed analysis would have determined which option was the best. In the City’s options analysis, neither was seriously considered. The chosen rail tunnel plan would have been a distant third as it incorporates the downsides of each option.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Buffalo suffers from population decline, so naturally the ridership would decline as well:

Buffalo Population By Decade
Year Population % Change
1960 532,759 -8.2%
1970 462,768 -13.1%
1980 357,870 -22.7%
1990 328,123 -8.3%
2000 292,648 -10.8%
Est. 2006 257,758 -11.9%

Not even the best transit system could do anything about that.

Agreed that Buffalo has faced very difficult times for many decades. It would be interested to go back to see whether the line was sold on the basis that it would help reverse that trend.

Part of my point was that, after building the line, the city regretted it (that may no longer be true today, at least at the political level).

The other part is that most rail lines built over the past few decades in North America have received generous funding from senior levels of government. Were local governments to shut down those lines, they may have to repay the assistance received. Those repayments would dwarf the savings in operating costs generated by a shutdown.