Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Curitiba, the favourite example of BRT, is in fact planning a subway line. Both technologies have their place.

They are using the hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup as justification for splurging on a subway line. Given the host of development challenges that Brazil faces, this is tragic in my opinion (i.e., the money could be better used elsewhere).

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 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.

With all the Tunney's Pasture/LeBreton business and the new bridge at Hurdman, that's probably what they will be doing.

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.

That's not too surprising, actually. For one, any city with BRT will also have a BRT lobby that will try to keep the status quo in place long after it makes sense to convert - even if they once upon a time said that BRT could be converted as a means to getting the population and their politicians to acquiesce to BRT in the first place. For another, no other city has a BRT system quite as extensive and highly-used as Ottawa's, so no other city has yet faced the pressures to convert that we face. We will be the first to go and other cities will be paying attention. Still others who are considering BRT vs LRT will probably conclude that BRT isn't worth the grief and go for LRT from the outset.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

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.

In most discussions on transit it is the bus fanatics who don't want to look at other options. Bus fanatics believe that buses can do everything everywhere and always. No rail 'fanatic' believes that is the case for rail. All rail advocates recognize that buses will always have a role in the transit system. Indeed, that's why most would actually refer to themselves as transit advocates since they advocate a mix of transit solutions and not a one-size-fits-all solution. But bus advocates seem incapable of admitting the same in large cities where the demands clearly call for something other than buses. You don't find rail advocates going around arguing for the laying of rail tracks in suburban neighbourhood collectors, yet bus people will make the equivalent argument for buses as the trunk service. It's just as unreasonable as arguing for rails in suburban collector streets, yet that's what happens time and again.

My own views were shaped once I actually left Ottawa for awhile and I came to realize how inappropriate our transit system actually is.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I just keep thinking about how we're the Capital of a G8 country, one of the best countries in the world to live in, and supposedly very prosperous and yet we have in the Capital a bickering and divided council, ridiculous BRT and people who still maintain that Ottawa is a small town/city.

It's sad and pathetic.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I just keep thinking about how we're the Capital of a G8 country, one of the best countries in the world to live in, and supposedly very prosperous and yet we have in the Capital a bickering and divided council, ridiculous BRT and people who still maintain that Ottawa is a small town/city.

It's sad and pathetic.

I totally agree, but look at the plan that we approved. It is unfolding as expected. We have had two rounds of funding in the last few years and all we have been able to do is expand BRT. We are also expecting that federal LRT funding for the Strandherd Bridge to be converted to a road and BRT bridge. LRT has been designed to fail because of the cost of the tunnel and the fact that it delivers no new service. Without the tunnel, our vision for LRT has to return to the drawing board yet again. Even FOTO is now advocating the Hospital and south Orleans corridor for LRT, something I have supported all along. Instead, our plan for new rapid transit is almost all slated for BRT including that corridor.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

In most discussions on transit it is the bus fanatics who don't want to look at other options. Bus fanatics believe that buses can do everything everywhere and always. No rail 'fanatic' believes that is the case for rail. All rail advocates recognize that buses will always have a role in the transit system. Indeed, that's why most would actually refer to themselves as transit advocates since they advocate a mix of transit solutions and not a one-size-fits-all solution. But bus advocates seem incapable of admitting the same in large cities where the demands clearly call for something other than buses. You don't find rail advocates going around arguing for the laying of rail tracks in suburban neighbourhood collectors, yet bus people will make the equivalent argument for buses as the trunk service. It's just as unreasonable as arguing for rails in suburban collector streets, yet that's what happens time and again.

My own views were shaped once I actually left Ottawa for awhile and I came to realize how inappropriate our transit system actually is.

1) I'm not a bus advocate as you know.
2) Rail doesn't work without buses as feeders, but buses work fine on their own (same levels as LRT) until heavy rail is needed.
3) You're mistaken.

We can probably expect the same quality transit whether it's BRT or LRT.

[Dado]

It's like a parody around here at times, it really is.

[rocketphish]

City searching for LRT station 'mining' sites
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Mon, Jun 8, 2009 12:00 AM EST


Tunnel route limits number of usable vacant lots in east, observers say

Municipal officials say they've started discussions with downtown property owners interested in temporarily providing excavation sites for the city's planned light-rail tunnel stations.

Shafts are needed to bring down finishing materials such as drywall, electrical equipment and lights for the stations, as well as provide ventilation and emergency access, says Dennis Gratton, a senior project engineer at the city.

Observers say the most likely candidates are vacant development sites or surface parking lots.

The requirement was identified in a wide-ranging request for information issued by the city late last month. Private-sector proponents are being asked for feedback on participating in the light-rail project on a variety of scales, from sponsorship and naming rights to providing access to a LRT station through private buildings.

It is generally expected that businesses will make a financial contribution against the construction costs of the tunnel, which will run as deep as 30 metres below the surface, in return for the benefits associated with, for example, having a transit connection in their buildings.

However, some feel the situation must be reversed for landowners willing to provide the city with an excavation site who will forgo revenues from a parking lot and the opportunity to develop their property for several years.

"There has to be some reciprocity," says Gerry LePage, executive director of the Bank Street Promenade BIA, who says the city's approach in involving the private sector in the light-rail project has so far been "thorough" and "sensitive to the needs of business."

However, Mr. Gratton says it has "yet to be determined" whether landowners will be financially compensated for providing property for station excavation.

Compensation could also take the form of land exchanges or breaks on development charges, which the city references in the RFI as ways of encouraging transit-oriented developments.

Mr. Gratton says while the city has not yet determined the minimum "mining" lot size it requires, it has already identified several potentially useable sites, including publicly owned properties managed by Public Works and the National Capital Commission.

However, others say the city is limiting its options for excavation locations with its proposed "cross-country" tunnel route, which follows Albert Street in the west before veering north at Kent Street towards the Rideau Centre.

"As you move further east, there are fewer (underground) access points because the downtown is more built up already ... (and) the number of vacant lots is somewhat lower," says Hume Rogers of the Downtown Coalition, a group of commercial landlords in the city core that has advocated for the eastern portion of the tunnel to be shifted south to maximize ridership potential.

David Jeanes, president of transit lobby group Transport 2000, says the proposed location of the east downtown station at O'Connor and Queen streets is too distant to make use of a large 32,000-square-foot parking lot owned by Public Works behind the Lorne Building on Elgin Street, between Albert and Slater streets.

He is also ruling out a smaller, 13,000-square-foot surface parking lot at the north-west corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets for the same reason. There is a sizable development site between Sparks and Queen streets, just west of Metcalfe Street, but the NCC approved a mixed-use development plan for the property last year, making it an unlikely candidate, says Mr. Jeanes.

"I really don't know what the city is going to get in terms of proposals here, but I don't see any real lucrative winners jumping off the map."

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com...8359921440.php

[Richard Eade]

Well, the new library position gives an excellent opportunity to actually integrate the station into a City building.



In this suggestion, the train runs straight in under Slater instead of through reversing curves in under Albert. Those curves are roughly in the middle between stations so that is where the train should be going the fastest. By eliminating those curves, the ride will be more comfortable.

The curve to start the MODIFIED 'Cross Country' route is just west of the Library Station so the train will already have slowed by then.

Just for fun, I added a station under BANK and Queen because O'Connor is a silly place to have that station. Bank is the main north-south pedestrian street and the one with surface transit. Any slight bend in the path will, again be right before or after the station.

There is a new station at the War Memorial. This is THE central station for tourists, and the name will be memorable. From here, there is the Parlament Buildings, Spark Street, War Memorial, NAC, Canal, Chateau Laurier. It is a short walk from the City Hall, Rideau Centre, and Byward Market. Also, this station provides LOTS of room for accesses so that festival and Canada Day crowds are not crammed into Rideau Street. It is not as far north as the proposed Rideau Station but still can provide the vertical transfer to buses.

The Mackenzie-King Station is long enough to stretch between the south end of the Rideau Centre and Waller. This provides a combined function of the current Mackenzie-King and Laurier Bus Stations, keeping service to this area. Access to the Rideau Center and the new Conference Centre would be at the south end to maintain current traffic patterns. A station in this position is technically MUCH easier and cheaper to build than one under the north of Rideau Centre.

Notice that I have not followed the Transitway from Laurier to Campus Stations - we are 30m down so there is no need to - allowing the curves to be smoother. The curves are also close to stations and not in the middle between stations which would slow down the trains.

[AuxTown]

Very practical and well-thought out plan. That is more like what I imagined the downtown LRT to be like. The entire idea of building the LRT is centered around downtown so it doesn't make sense to be making sacrifices and compromises within the CBC to save a few million dollars.

[Dado]

Richard,

I was thinking the same thing while reading the Library thread, where I posted a comment on just this.

In that post I also pointed out that the station could be built shallower since it can be built from an excavation as there won't be any excessive disruption by doing so. There is a good opportunity here to save time and money as well as to integrate things while making the transit system better overall.

If they get on with building the Library before the tunnel, the station will actually be available ahead of time. Forward-thinking advanced planning!

Of course... it would have helped had the Library site been announced sometime *before* Council decided on the alignment, wouldn't it have?

[waterloowarrior]

TMP Summer 09 Newsletter

Western Parkway LRT Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study – Statement of Work

[Deez]

^Overall I'm quite pleased by the direction that's being taken with the Western Corridor Study. Priorities seem to have shifted from forcing the LRT down the Parkway, to keeping a fairly open mind (at least on paper) with respect to routing.

Unfortunately, this study is sure to open a whole new can of worms regardless of which option is chosen:

-The Parkway route is the least practical in my opinion; the only justification that seems to be used is that it would speed up travel times for those coming from the western burbs (at the expense of the accessibility of the system by Ottawa West residents). This tends to ignore the fact that significant ridership potential is available elsewhere (Richmond/Carling) for non peak hour trips...you may as well kill two birds with one stone.

-The Byron Corridor is an improvement over the Parkway, but it is not without its problems. While building an at-grade facility would significantly save on capital costs, it may be outweighed by the lost opportunity in being able to operate an automated system. I can also already hear the Westborites lamenting their lost open space...

-Options involving Carling Ave. bring forward some new problems. If Carling is accessed via the O-Train corridor, then you're left with an awkward spur to Tunney's (and likely to Dominion) that would unfortunately suffer from a lower level of service by necessity. If Carling is accessed via, say, Parkdale, Holland or Kirkwood, you're stuck with some low radius turns and miss the bulk of government office space in the vicinity of Dow's Lake. There's also the question of grade separation: a non-grade separated Carling line would be slow regardless of any signal priority that may be adopted.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

PS - I'm sure that has been brought up ad nauseum. I just figured I should get myself back in the game now that I'm back in town.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Deez

^Overall I'm quite pleased by the direction that's being taken with the Western Corridor Study. Priorities seem to have shifted from forcing the LRT down the Parkway, to keeping a fairly open mind (at least on paper) with respect to routing.

I noticed that too. Let's hope that's the case. I was particularly gratified to see "or some combination" since that opens the door to my favourite option:

Dominion to Cleary via the old CPR corridor just to the south of the Parkway, and then from Cleary into the Byron/Richmond corridor past the new Continental condo development.

Unfortunately, this study is sure to open a whole new can of worms regardless of which option is chosen:

-The Parkway route is the least practical in my opinion; the only justification that seems to be used is that it would speed up travel times for those coming from the western burbs (at the expense of the accessibility of the system by Ottawa West residents). This tends to ignore the fact that significant ridership potential is available elsewhere (Richmond/Carling) for non peak hour trips...you may as well kill two birds with one stone.

The reversing curves of that route may not even mean sped up travel times, unless the route also means fewer stations (an admittedly definite possibility). The main rationale, as far as I can see, is simplicity of securing a RoW and construction.

-The Byron Corridor is an improvement over the Parkway, but it is not without its problems. While building an at-grade facility would significantly save on capital costs, it may be outweighed by the lost opportunity in being able to operate an automated system. I can also already hear the Westborites lamenting their lost open space...

Minor nit: most people who live in Westboro live east of the affected area. Many of the whiners will be people who claim to live in Westboro but don't really. It's rather amazing to see how far south and west "Westboro" has come to extend since it became a popular, fashionable place rather than a down-and-out slowly decaying village surrounded by lower-quality lower to lower-middle income housing (just go to the streets immediately north of Richmond and you can still see what I mean). It used to be that you were someone if you lived in Highland Park (very nice houses) and McKellar Park (post-war housing of reasonable quality that hasn't quite got the suburbia feel to it) but now both seem to be included in Westboro. The border redrawing has got so ridiculous that the part of Westboro around Westboro Beach (built in the 1960s) and which used to contain the old Westboro CPR station (it was north of what is now the Transitway) is no longer in Westboro but is now in what is called "Westboro Beach".

/rant

At any rate, there are ways to minimize loss of open space. The area faces another transportation threat anyway: twinning of Richmond Road. An at-grade LRT could effectively block that if done right.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The Mackenzie-King Station is long enough to stretch between the south end of the Rideau Centre and Waller. This provides a combined function of the current Mackenzie-King and Laurier Bus Stations, keeping service to this area. Access to the Rideau Center and the new Conference Centre would be at the south end to maintain current traffic patterns. A station in this position is technically MUCH easier and cheaper to build than one under the north of Rideau Centre.

Personally, I like the proposed station on Rideau Street rather than the Mackenzie King bridge area, as it serves the Market area really well. The Market is the late night entertainment district, beyond the operating hours of the Rideau Centre. Also, having the station 10 storeys underground then having street access three storeys up on bridge level would just be ridiculous. The way to address the stupid view of the Rideau Centre management is to reverse the current situation: have the station under Rideau Street but remove most of the buses there and reroute them to the bridge. This would result in a calmer Rideau Street and maybe restore the street level shopping there. Less buses on Rideau would also less traffic on Wellington.

The other thing I like about what is currently planned is the potential for underground pedestrian link between the Sparks Street Mall and the Market, as well as the Canal, avoiding the ridiculous crosswalk situation on the Plaza Bridge area

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Personally, I like the proposed station on Rideau Street rather than the Mackenzie King bridge area, as it serves the Market area really well. The Market is the late night entertainment district, beyond the operating hours of the Rideau Centre. Also, having the station 10 storeys underground then having street access three storeys up on bridge level would just be ridiculous. The way to address the stupid view of the Rideau Centre management is to reverse the current situation: have the station under Rideau Street but remove most of the buses there and reroute them to the bridge. This would result in a calmer Rideau Street and maybe restore the street level shopping there. Less buses on Rideau would also less traffic on Wellington.

I completely agree. I don't think we'll be getting rid of STO buses anytime soon so move them to Mackenzie King where there will be plenty of room and, hopefully, Rideau Street will be all the better for it. I imagine there will also be a few OC routes that will still have to run buses and, ideally, would still be able to go through downtown (avoiding a transfer). The 85 is a perfect example of this.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I completely agree. I don't think we'll be getting rid of STO buses anytime soon so move them to Mackenzie King where there will be plenty of room and, hopefully, Rideau Street will be all the better for it. I imagine there will also be a few OC routes that will still have to run buses and, ideally, would still be able to go through downtown (avoiding a transfer). The 85 is a perfect example of this.

After full implementation of the LRT, assuming it is in the tunnel under Rideau Street, here is how I would do it:

Routes using Mackenzie King to access the terminal- 2, 3, 4, 6, all STO routes

Routes using Rideau Street (from east) to access the terminal - 9, 12, 12C/15

Routes using Rideau Street (from west) to access the terminal - All routes only after midnight

Routes using Mackenzie King through downtown - 1, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 85, 86

Routes using Rideau Street through downtown - 306, 316, routes listed above only after midnight

Routes removed from downtown - besides express routes - 87 (terminates Hurdman)

A new massive bus terminal should be built adjacent to the Rideau Centre as well on the east side (in what is now mostly parking). It should act as a layover for all STO routes and OC routes that terminate downtown.

[Deez]

^If you're thinking of the surface lot north of the parking garage, that land will be used to accommodate an expansion of the Rideau Centre (tentatively slated to start after the completion of the Congress Centre). I also think a large bus terminal would be a waste on such valuable land. The smarter thing to do would be to reconfigure the downtown routes such that fewer would need to travel along Rideau or over the MacKenzie King Bridge.

Speaking of route configuration, expect to see some preliminary plans for a reconfig around the LRT before the end of July.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

^If you're thinking of the surface lot north of the parking garage, that land will be used to accommodate an expansion of the Rideau Centre (tentatively slated to start after the completion of the Congress Centre). I also think a large bus terminal would be a waste on such valuable land. The smarter thing to do would be to reconfigure the downtown routes such that fewer would need to travel along Rideau or over the MacKenzie King Bridge.

Speaking of route configuration, expect to see some preliminary plans for a reconfig around the LRT before the end of July.

The smarter thing to do was to incorporate the bus terminal in a building, like other cities, or like I mentioned before, included in the new parking that was being built at the Rideau Centre. That would have solve most problems of the STO buses heading out downtown. Of course, that would have involve practical planning, which is impossible in Ottawa.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Deez

^If you're thinking of the surface lot north of the parking garage, that land will be used to accommodate an expansion of the Rideau Centre (tentatively slated to start after the completion of the Congress Centre). I also think a large bus terminal would be a waste on such valuable land. The smarter thing to do would be to reconfigure the downtown routes such that fewer would need to travel along Rideau or over the MacKenzie King Bridge.

Speaking of route configuration, expect to see some preliminary plans for a reconfig around the LRT before the end of July.

The Rideau Centre expansion could be concentrated on the higher levels (2nd to 4th), with the terminal on the surface level (it would also put shopping directly above the transit service, an effective use of space). Any surface parking in the area would be converted as well to a transit layover space.

Any further Congress Centre expansion should be done by adding a 5th or higher floors to the entire complex, and laying it out above the entire Rideau Centre, unless an entertainment area that needs extra height is desired.