Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[lrt's friend]

Honestly, I wish we would say "tough cookies" to the suburbs and keep expensive light-rail in the inner city.

I think this is backward thinking especially thinking towards the future. Ottawa's inner city is small and in many cases rapid transit is now being fed by the suburban residents and making it viable. We are smartening up in that we are creating rapid transit corridors in all new suburbs. This will reduce the cost of extending service substantially. This is the main stumbling block right now because it is so expensive to build light rail through the inner city because all we thought about was cars until the 1980s at least. A perfect example was the extension of the O-Train. The largest cost was to double track the existing O-Train line through the inner city. The cost of extending service to Barrhaven was really a pittance by comparison, because existing development was not in the way. If we want to change the car culture even a little bit, we need to start taking some novel approaches, which we are afraid to do.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Honestly, I wish we would say "tough cookies" to the suburbs and keep expensive light-rail in the inner city. A part of me would love to convert the existing O-Train to Ottawa's second (and north-south) LRT line, terminating at the airport, but another part of me would love to double-track it as-is for the purposes of commuter rail. Essentially, I have two similar versions of an "ideal" transit plan:

Tough cookies are my favourite kind!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we want to change the car culture even a little bit, we need to start taking some novel approaches, which we are afraid to do.

As long as we keep building the same kind of crappy suburbs, without main streets, without grids or semi-grids, without a true mixture of uses, then other than the morning and evening rush-hour civil service commute, these suburbs will never, and can never, be supportive of anything other than bus transit.

Changes to our land use have to come first, and be incrementally retroactive. And as there is no political will or economic imperative to do that, and, in fact, all kinds of political will and economic imperative to do just the opposite, shag the suburbs. Let them wallow in their cars. It's what they want to do anyway. Just make them pay the true costs of doing so, instead of shifting them inward towards the core of the city, our forward to future generations.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think this is backward thinking especially thinking towards the future. Ottawa's inner city is small and in many cases rapid transit is now being fed by the suburban residents and making it viable.

I respectfully disagree, for reasons I will outline soon. While Ottawa's inner city is small, it's fairly dense and functional. Transit being fed by the suburbs is again, mostly a downtown-oriented commute. Hence why I suggest a primarily commuter line to lighten the cattle-like conditions of rush hour, and to help mitigate traffic and congestion. Ottawa wouldn't need to spend so much on road expansion as well.

We are smartening up in that we are creating rapid transit corridors in all new suburbs. This will reduce the cost of extending service substantially.

To an extent, but as we've already seen, sprawl is still (and will continue to be) an issue. Expanding LRT into the suburbs WILL be expensive; especially since we seem set on building BRT and THEN converting it to rail, which would only cause the additional problem of taking the rapid out of rapid transit as it navigates the car-dominated suburbs. We're basically paying double; that's hardly cost-savings.

This is the main stumbling block right now because it is so expensive to build light rail through the inner city because all we thought about was cars until the 1980s at least. A perfect example was the extension of the O-Train. The largest cost was to double track the existing O-Train line through the inner city. The cost of extending service to Barrhaven was really a pittance by comparison, because existing development was not in the way. If we want to change the car culture even a little bit, we need to start taking some novel approaches, which we are afraid to do.

What exactly is novel about continuing to build transitway, with the aim to convert it later, while doing almost nothing else to "spread the load around" so to speak? This was part of the thinking behind my plan:

- No matter what, there are going to be a lot of people who simply will not give up driving a car everywhere and for everything. We can't change that, nor should we try.

- The suburbs like to pretend they are real cities. Let's help them with that. How? Essentially force terrible traffic conditions while focusing more on public transit in various modes (bus, LRT, commuter train). Not only would development eventually cluster around the stations, but with something like express commuter trains, people could get from the major suburbs to the downtown area much faster than by car. This also helps our environment.

- By keeping LRT in the inner city, there becomes an added incentive to living within the city limits (accessibility), but it's not crowded at all times like we're starting to see now. Furthermore, increased development would occur around the stations. Just look at Carling.

- It tackles several of Ottawa's most pressing and troublesome transit concerns quite effectively and affordably. Make LRT grade-separated for relatively quick and convenient trips throughout the city of Ottawa proper (hence, within the Greenbelt only), and transfer the overwhelmingly commuter-based ridership of OC Transpo onto commuter trains that help share the load, will allow for capacity to grow without too much additional costs and expansion in the future, and cuts down on commute times as it gets the right kind of people to the right destinations in a fairly short amount of time over such a large distance.

- When all is said and done, Ottawa would effectively have buses that are flexible in being able to switch from transitway to city streets, and serve as collectors for the main transit stations, LRT for relatively quick transit within the central city, and commuter trains to get people from the region into and out of the city affordably and efficiently.

It's flexible, multi-modal, will change the dynamic, and I think is a rather novel approach, if somewhat risky.

[J.OT13]

Dream transit plan according to J.OT13;

metrO;

Line 67 - Outaouais Line
From Rideau Station, under the Market to the Alexandra Bridge to Hull, back underground to what is today the Rapibus, converting it to Labrosse. Line would split at Monté Paiment to go south to Ottawa via Kettle Island Bridge with stations at Aviation Museum, Montfort, Cité Collegial, Ogilvie and Blair.

Line 94 - Yellow MacDonald-Cartier Line
Riverside South to Tremblay (going to Belfast Yards to turn back) with 2 trains per hour heading to the Airport via a spur.

Line 95 - Green Algonquin Line
Barrhaven Town Centre to Trim

Line 96 - Red Confederation Line
Corel Centre to Rockland (not all trains would go all the way to Rockland, drop all highway widening plans)

Line 55 - Orange Rideau Line

Fully underground; Billings Bridge, up Bank Street to Rideau-Montreal ending at CFB Rockliffe.

At grade Light Rail Transit;

-Carling from Bronson to Kanata North
-St-Laurent turning on Hemlock/Beechwood all the way to the Market.

could connect the two via Bronson eventually.

O-Train (commuter rail);

http://www.mobilityottawaoutaouais.com/

[lrt's friend]

Basically, I just really want to see expensive LRT reserved for the city within the Greenbelt (where it is warranted) and an efficient, appropriate, affordable form of commuter rail that connects the suburbs with the central city, ultimately meaning that only one transfer would ever be required. With the express trains, it will likely be faster than taking a car as it gets you roughly to where you need to go, without overcrowding and causing transit traffic jams, let alone car traffic jams.

Um, how do you come up with this? Commuter Rail assumes a handful (at most) central stations in the suburbs. How does this amount to one transfer? Or are we going to ask all suburbanites to take their car to the station? This is why commuter rail attracts so few riders in most cities. In the hundreds in some cases, in mid-sized cities. And then on top of that, we don't take them downtown as is the case in Montreal or Toronto. Even with the success of Go Transit in Toronto, there is poor integration with local transit. Basically, the draw is the poor traffic conditions and the distances travelling into central Toronto from Oakville or Oshawa.

I have said it before that existing rail will not deliver faster service than the existing Transitway system. In addition, Ottawa is not big enough to have competing LRT and commuter rail systems. The success of LRT in the inner city is dependant on the number of passengers being fed into it from the suburbs, ultimately Orleans feeding into Blair Station. There is not a sufficient population base around any of the east end stations to support LRT on their own. They are notoriously badly located in relation to the neighbouring population base. If LRT is to operate for the inner city only with separate commuter rail to serve Orleans, it should run along Montreal Road where there is shopping, employment and numerous apartment buildings. I question the desirability of the locations along the proposed LRT line for intensification being right next to the Queensway. A western extension near the river is another question.

In questioning the value of extending LRT into the suburbs, I first point out the lack of suitable rail lines for commuter rail. Orleans has none. The Stittsville example is highly unlikely to be resurrected. I then point out the most successful LRT system on the continent, the C-Train, where LRT is being pushed to the edges of the suburbs.

The problem I see is that we are treating our LRT system as if it was a subway. This is a mistake. As I said, Ottawa is not big enough for parallel rail networks. I am all for using existing rail lines but with the understanding of their limitations, that they will only likely adequately offer cross-town service. And that is not a bad idea. I just read that a good part of Metrolinx`s strategy is to link suburbs together. As congestion increases in the suburbs and employment grows in the suburbs, this is where transit ridership growth opportunities exist.

Regardless of certain hot spots for intensification at Carling & Preston, the Byward Market and Westboro, most of the inner city has declining household sizes and aging populations where transit ridership is declining or flat. The suburbs are where younger families are located, which means ridership potential.

We need to look at the city as a whole and end this suburban versus inner city superiority debate. The fact of the matter is that the lowest density suburbs are actually located inside the Greenbelt. Many areas can barely support hourly bus service, let alone a whole web of LRT lines, without supporting suburban passengers.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In addition, Ottawa is not big enough to have competing LRT and commuter rail systems.

Competing?

Where would they be in competition with one another?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Competing?

Where would they be in competition with one another?

They will be competing on two levels.

1. We will need two sets of tracks and two sets of trains, one for LRT and another for commuter rail. Commuter rail as described will be entering the 'inner city'. For a good portion of the route there will be parallel services in operation.

2. They will be competing for passengers. Right now, the Transitways serve both the suburbs and inner city. A network of commuter trains from the suburbs will syphon off a good portion of the passenger load from an inner city only LRT system.

Because the commuter rail cannot go downtown, we also have to build a lot of extra capacity on the LRT system for a short portion of the route. That will be from the Via Rail station into downtown based on the example.

[monkeybongo]

Is it true that suburbs are really funding OCTranspo? I thought most suburban bus routes were running at a loss except for the 9x routes and infrequent expresses. Too much area to cover and not enough density.

Now that the Presto pass is in place ... is it feasible in the public mind to go for charging based on number of stops or fare zones? I've gone to some cities with efficient systems that have this in place.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by monkeybongo

Is it true that suburbs are really funding OCTranspo? I thought most suburban bus routes were running at a loss except for the 9x routes and infrequent expresses. Too much area to cover and not enough density.

Now that the Presto pass is in place ... is it feasible in the public mind to go for charging based on number of stops or fare zones? I've gone to some cities with efficient systems that have this in place.

I have always thought that passengers passing across the Greenbelt should pay more. The issue is not so much density (most modern suburbs are denser than older suburbs inside the Greenbelt) as it is the car culture in the suburbs and the distance travelled per trip.

It seems awfully complicated on a technical basis to charge by distance. Basically, you will need to either get riders to tap their Presto card on exit (how do you control this?) or something that automatically can read the Presto Card when exiting a transit vehicle. More or less a system like they have on Highway 407. This seems a major technical leap beyond what we have just installed. How would you deal with non-Presto users anyways?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have always thought that passengers passing across the Greenbelt should pay more. The issue is not so much density (most modern suburbs are denser than older suburbs inside the Greenbelt) as it is the car culture in the suburbs and the distance travelled per trip.

It seems awfully complicated on a technical basis to charge by distance. Basically, you will need to either get riders to tap their Presto card on exit (how do you control this?) or something that automatically can read the Presto Card when exiting a transit vehicle. More or less a system like they have on Highway 407. This seems a major technical leap beyond what we have just installed. How would you deal with non-Presto users anyways?

I agree about distance charges (which would hit cross-Greenbelt commuters, including some downtown residents who work in the suburbs) which I think would be fair. Something like this:

Zone 1 (inside Greenbelt) - current Regular fare

Zone 2 only (i.e. within Kanata, Barrhaven or Orleans) - current Regular fare

Between Zones 1 and 2 - current Express fare

Zone 3 (rural Ottawa) - bring back the Rural Express fare, and apply it for trips from Zone 3 to Zone 1. The current Express fare would apply between Zones 3 and Zone 2 (i.e. from Manotick to Barrhaven).

Exceptions: zone fares would not be applied to seniors using Senior passes, or children using passes or PRESTO cards. In addition, there should be no zone fares on weekends or holidays - all would be charged at Zone 1 rate (to encourage family use from the suburbs).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They will be competing on two levels.

1. We will need two sets of tracks and two sets of trains, one for LRT and another for commuter rail. Commuter rail as described will be entering the 'inner city'. For a good portion of the route there will be parallel services in operation.

I thought the idea with commuter rail was using existing, underused lines?

2. They will be competing for passengers. Right now, the Transitways serve both the suburbs and inner city. A network of commuter trains from the suburbs will syphon off a good portion of the passenger load from an inner city only LRT system.

Options are good things to have. Bring on the options.

It's long past time for another O-Train style pilot on existing tracks. People say it won't work, that no one wants to get on a train from nowhere to nowhere (the VIA terminal.)

Let's test that hypothesis in the real world.

Because the commuter rail cannot go downtown, we also have to build a lot of extra capacity on the LRT system for a short portion of the route. That will be from the Via Rail station into downtown based on the example.

Why, if a commuter rail line were only cannibalizing ("competing") with BRT/LRT ridership, would we have to build extra capacity on the LRT?

[OTSkyline]

Everyone settle down; I have the perfect "dream" transit plan for Ottawa.
It includes 5 lines... 4 LRT lines and the O-train..


Red Line: Trim to Canadian Tire Centre
Purple Line: Trim to Riverside South (Going along Innes in Orleans, Montreal in "Ottawa" and the going down bank street (this part all underground), going through YOW and finishing in Riverside South.
Green Line: Hurdman to Kanata North, going along Riverside and taking a turn to follow Baseline and going though Kanata south to Kanata North
Pink Line: Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven along Woodroffe.
Blue Line:Existing O-Train that could later be converted to Light Rail.. going from Bayview and extending around Hunt Club/Blossom Park



http://flic.kr/p/f5R98W

So... what do you think?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

So... what do you think?

1. Suture together the "loose ends" in the south and east ends.

2. Hull/Gatineau exist.

[lrt's friend]

Options are good things to have. Bring on the options.

It's long past time for another O-Train style pilot on existing tracks. People say it won't work, that no one wants to get on a train from nowhere to nowhere (the VIA terminal.)

Let's test that hypothesis in the real world.

I am all for this but this option was blown away with the 2008 TMP. All we are interested in now is rebuilding existing rapid transit, which is really blowing the bank anyways. There is no money left to experiment like we did with the first O-Train. This idea went out when we kicked Chiarelli out of office.

Why, if a commuter rail line were only cannibalizing ("competing") with BRT/LRT ridership, would we have to build extra capacity on the LRT?

Because commuter rail cannot go downtown. Therefore, most passengers using commuter rail will still have to transfer to LRT to get to their destination. We have to build LRT to handle the greatest demand on the line. Therefore, whether the passengers get on at the Via Station or Baseline Station, we still have to make space for them. The only difference is that with commuter rail, you have to buy extra trains to bring the passengers across the city while the LRT system will be half empty except for that section between the Via Rail station and downtown. That assumes that people will actually be willing to do this, to cross the city from Kanata and go considerably east of downtown before backtracking.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am all for this but this option was blown away with the 2008 TMP. All we are interested in now is rebuilding existing rapid transit, which is really blowing the bank anyways. There is no money left to experiment like we did with the first O-Train. This idea went out when we kicked Chiarelli out of office.

Have you forgotten that Chiarelli's O-Train replacement plan also included selling off the three Talent trains? The only reason the Talents are still around is because the N-S LRT was cancelled. Make no mistake about it, there would have been no further pilot projects under Chiarelli either. Chiarelli really changed his tune in a few short years around 2004-2005 when he went from being an enthusiastic supporter of the O-Train (including extending it on other lines) to a supporter of its complete replacement.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am all for this but this option was blown away with the 2008 TMP.

Ha ha ha you think "plans" mean something.

They don't.

Because commuter rail cannot go downtown. Therefore, most passengers using commuter rail will still have to transfer to LRT to get to their destination.

And? BFD.

We have to build LRT to handle the greatest demand on the line. Therefore, whether the passengers get on at the Via Station or Baseline Station, we still have to make space for them.

Where's the space problem? I don't see the space problem.

The only difference is that with commuter rail, you have to buy extra trains to bring the passengers across the city while the LRT system will be half empty

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

except for that section between the Via Rail station and downtown. That assumes that people will actually be willing to do this, to cross the city from Kanata and go considerably east of downtown before backtracking.

Many people won't.

Some people WILL.

That's what all transportation is about: SOME people. No mode is about all of them.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you forgotten that Chiarelli's O-Train replacement plan also included selling off the three Talent trains? The only reason the Talents are still around is because the N-S LRT was cancelled. Make no mistake about it, there would have been no further pilot projects under Chiarelli either. Chiarelli really changed his tune in a few short years around 2004-2005 when he went from being an enthusiastic supporter of the O-Train (including extending it on other lines) to a supporter of its complete replacement.

Your point may be valid but our current TMP does not even consider using existing rail lines in any capacity.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Have you forgotten that Chiarelli's O-Train replacement plan also included selling off the three Talent trains? The only reason the Talents are still around is because the N-S LRT was cancelled. Make no mistake about it, there would have been no further pilot projects under Chiarelli either. Chiarelli really changed his tune in a few short years around 2004-2005 when he went from being an enthusiastic supporter of the O-Train (including extending it on other lines) to a supporter of its complete replacement.

Are we not selling of the Talent trains anyways? I really question whether further 'pilot' projects were needed and whether they are desireable. We see that pilot projects are not really pilot projects at all and the consequences are repeated shutdowns in service as we have seen with the O-Train. How many more O-Train shutdowns will there be in the future? I thought they needed to replace the Carleton University bridge at some point. And what about the addition of stations at Gladstone and Walkley. These cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned. The only way we get away with this is because it serves Carleton University which is more or less closed during the summer. This would be unacceptable anywhere else in the city. Sure, the Chiarelli plan was not perfect, but it was agreed to by city council as a whole. The studies had just begun so it is premature to be so critical of what would have been the outcome. City Council would have adapted the plan as we are today with 2008 TMP. When was that other TMP? 2003. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then and likely we would be building the tunnel today anyways. The pressure and the need was building. The only thing is that we trashed a lot of things including use of existing rail lines. And I say that this is a pity.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am all for this but this option was blown away with the 2008 TMP. All we are interested in now is rebuilding existing rapid transit, which is really blowing the bank anyways. There is no money left to experiment like we did with the first O-Train. This idea went out when we kicked Chiarelli out of office.



Because commuter rail cannot go downtown. Therefore, most passengers using commuter rail will still have to transfer to LRT to get to their destination. We have to build LRT to handle the greatest demand on the line. Therefore, whether the passengers get on at the Via Station or Baseline Station, we still have to make space for them. The only difference is that with commuter rail, you have to buy extra trains to bring the passengers across the city while the LRT system will be half empty except for that section between the Via Rail station and downtown. That assumes that people will actually be willing to do this, to cross the city from Kanata and go considerably east of downtown before backtracking.

I thought of that too, but until (if) Union Station is re-instated as a railway station, we'll have to make due with the Tremblay Station.

Considering the ridiculous amount of distance between the city and the rural suburbs far and wide, I think people would use it even if it doesn't bring them directly Downtown. Of course I wouldn't even consider it with the current bus system, but once the ORT is built, I'm sure it might convince people to use a commuter network.

Besides, even though TO, MTL and Vancouver all have their central station Downtown, I'm sure a lot of people still transfer to their respective subway systems.