Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

I'm sure on balance more people get nauseous from the ride of the buses than from travelling backwards on a train.

It would be interesting to get real data.

Originally Posted by Dado

I guess you'd best stop promoting PRT because those gondola-style PRT vehicles going in at Heathrow (ULTra) have backward facing seats and look to be bi-directional as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ULTra_001.jpg

Given that PRT is PERSONAL, and the average occupancy for car travel (also personal) is 1.6, most of the time, people travelling together (or alone) can choose their travelling direction. If they don't want to sit facing backwards, they can take another waiting podcar. Not so practical when the next train is in 5 to 15 minutes away.

Originally Posted by Dado

You do realize that this was only a suggestion by Richard, one that probably won't even happen anyway because the last time this idea surfaced - as one of the more inexpensive ways of getting LRVs out of Walkley Yard in the N-S LRT to head south to the end of the line - it was rejected as being too complicated, and that was without any passengers being present. So really, nothing to worry about.

OK. So there is no way to justify the rail spur to Tunney's then.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Almost every rail rapid transit system will have half the seats facing 'backward'. It makes quite a bit of sense - what else will they do at the end of the line?

This is just another example of not being passenger oriented. Yes, it's easier/cheaper for the train but it's bad for the patron.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

This is just another example of not being passenger oriented. Yes, it's easier/cheaper for the train but it's bad for the patron.

Who the fuck cares about which way you're seated, when you can switch seats? Try to make better arguments at least! And what about a crowded bus where nobody faces the same when when they're standing. Should we ban standing too?

If you want to be passenger oriented, just call a taxi, enough with this BS, you have totally lost me.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Who the fuck cares about which way you're seated, when you can switch seats? Try to make better arguments at least! And what about a crowded bus where nobody faces the same when when they're standing. Should we ban standing too?

If you want to be passenger oriented, just call a taxi, enough with this BS, you have totally lost me.

You can't switch seats when the LRV is even less than half full. I know you don't care about passenger comfort, that is obvious. You do realize that it's this sort of disregard for clients that makes mass transit the last mode choice. If we want to improve ridership, maybe we should start caring about the customer.

An automated taxi, what an interesting idea.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

You can't switch seats when the LRV is even less than half full. I know you don't care about passenger comfort, that is obvious. You do realize that it's this sort of disregard for clients that makes mass transit the last mode choice. If we want to improve ridership, maybe we should start caring about the customer.

No, you just are bringing stupid arguments, that's all. In all my years of transit planning, you're actually the FIRST, who came up with that point. I would definitely would like to see the statistics on who find it the most important to face the direction the vehicle is traveling to. It still amazes me that you are serious about this. If you have a disibility, call para transpo, oh wait, they attach the wheelchairs backwards too.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

It would be interesting to get real data.

Ya... keeping public transit vomit statistics. Now there's a worthwhile expenditure of public funds.

OK. So there is no way to justify the rail spur to Tunney's then.

Umm, not quite. This entire conversation is at about 2 levels of hypotheticals now. LRT will be going to Tunney's no matter what happens. It's just that at an operational level it's unlikely that Richard's scheme would ever be employed in the event that the West Transitway was not converted.

One would still have trains that start/end at Tunney's and others that head south at Bayview from downtown and points east to go to Carling or Greenboro. You just wouldn't have any that go in and out of Tunney's on their way elsewhere. Passengers destined to Tunney's from points south or west would have to transfer at Bayview.

Of course since that is going to be a major negative for a plan that doesn't use the West Transitway one can pretty safely assume that the West Transitway will be the route chosen and not Carling - when we get around to it in 10+ years. The battle royale of the West Transitway LRT routing will be involving the people living to the west of me who like to think they live in Westboro arguing over whether the Parkway or Richmond/Byron should be used.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So what if Tunneys was just a point on the route?



In this case, every train comes from downtown (the east) and goes to Tunneys. Then it switches tracks and heads back west, but every second train goes south from Bayview. The others simply go straight back through downtown.

Trains from the south all interline and head west to Tunneys. Then they switch tracks and proceed directly downtown.

Tunneys is no longer a wasted station no matter which western route is chosen.

OK, this was not a serious idea. I didn't think it would cause such an uproar. (note to self: you can't be facetious with this group)

Dado, you say that this idea was previously explored by staff? Wow. I hope they didn't spend more than a few seconds on it. This idea would add probably 5-8 minutes to most of the journeys. You would get a lot of people getting off the train at Bayview to transfer onto the previous train to save time. Assuming the 'T' station would allow transfers across the spur. If the Bayview station is east of the junction, then this would simply be a waste of time for the majority of riders. This is not something that a consultant who removes a station from the core to remove 1.5 minutes (OK, and $70M) would even consider.

(Sorry, Franky; I didn't mean to panic you with the threat of forcing you to travel back-wards. I also try to sit facing forward when I ride the O-Train. Although, statistically, I believe you are safer in a head-on collision if you are sitting back-wards. Keep in mind, too, that if the 'T' station is selected and changing directions means changing trains, you might not be able to find a forward facing seat on the train you are transfering onto.)

Just to set the record straight, this would be the same scenario if there were a station at the junction of the airport spur with the main line. If you could transfer around the spur, it would be a mess.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

OK, this was not a serious idea. I didn't think it would cause such an uproar. (note to self: you can't be facetious with this group)

Nothing wrong with having ideas and discussing them. I think spurs are a general limitation of LRT.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Dado, you say that this idea was previously explored by staff? Wow. I hope they didn't spend more than a few seconds on it. This idea would add probably 5-8 minutes to most of the journeys. You would get a lot of people getting off the train at Bayview to transfer onto the previous train to save time. Assuming the 'T' station would allow transfers across the spur. If the Bayview station is east of the junction, then this would simply be a waste of time for the majority of riders. This is not something that a consultant who removes a station from the core to remove 1.5 minutes (OK, and $70M) would even consider.

(Sorry, Franky; I didn't mean to panic you with the threat of forcing you to travel back-wards. I also try to sit facing forward when I ride the O-Train. Although, statistically, I believe you are safer in a head-on collision if you are sitting back-wards. Keep in mind, too, that if the 'T' station is selected and changing directions means changing trains, you might not be able to find a forward facing seat on the train you are transfering onto.)

No need to apologize, I was not panicked.
Good point about transfers. Do I need to point out this isn't as much an issue with buses - smaller loads means more destination flexibility.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Just to set the record straight, this would be the same scenario if there were a station at the junction of the airport spur with the main line. If you could transfer around the spur, it would be a mess.

I agree, spurs are a mess.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Dado, you say that this idea was previously explored by staff? Wow. I hope they didn't spend more than a few seconds on it.

It was "considered" by the consultants as part of the N-S LRT for a potential maintenance yard at Walkley Yard.

Somewhere along the way it was decided that LRVs from the north side of Walkley Yard (the north side is owned by CP, who lease it to the City, and the south side is owned by OCR/CN) would not be able to cross the freight track at grade to head to the south end of the line to begin daily service due to the interference from 2~4 freight trains a day. Accordingly, a way around this clearly enormous potential problem had to be found. Questions like "Is this *really* an actual problem?" or "What time do these freight trains move at usually? Don't they leave long after the beginning of daily service anyway?" or "Have you even talked to OCR?" were brushed aside.

Since the scheme already had a roller-coaster overpass of the freight tracks for the main LRT line one pricey option was to build an adjacent flyover of the track to provide access from the north side of the yard to the southbound LRT mainline. The other option was something similar to Richard's diagram and it was to send LRVs out of the yard to the north up to Walkley Station and then have them switch direction to go to the south end of the line to formally begin their runs. This was clearly too onerous ("complicated" i.e. "It can't be done!") so the Walkley Yard alternative was dismissed in favour of Bowesville.

I'll refrain from excessively digressing that this could have been largely avoided by converting the SE Twy...

[Richard Eade]

Ah, thanks for the back ground on that.

Speaking of conversion of the S-E Transitway (S-E Twy); did you happen to catch the comment made by David Hopper during the formal presentation last Thursday? When he was talking about the Hurdman re-design, he mentioned that the 'angled' option was included in case there was a future conversion of the S-E Twy.

David is one to generally choose his words carefully so I take from his statement that there is probably no chance that the S-E Twy will be converted instead of the O-Train line. Alas! Everyone I talked to in the display area was talking only of the O-Train conversion and, at best, mentioned that the S-E Twy might be considered in the future. That is MIGHT be considered, despite the Council mandate. Of course, even the Council Motion is so open in its wording that there is no direct order to compare the benefits between the two conversions.

I would have liked to hear a Motion like:

Be it resolved that Staff will undertake a full cost and benefit comparison between converting the O-Train line to twin-tracked, electric Light Rail technology between Bayview and Riverside South Town Centre and the conversion of the S-E Transitway to twin-tracked, electric Light Rail technology between Hurdman and the Riverside South Town Centre, with the goal of determining a priority for converting the routes.

Be it further resolved that Staff determine an estimate for the cost of converting the O-Train line between Bayview and Confederation to single-tracked, electric Light Rail, making use of as much of the existing infrastructure as practical.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Ah, thanks for the back ground on that.

Speaking of conversion of the S-E Transitway (S-E Twy); did you happen to catch the comment made by David Hopper during the formal presentation last Thursday? When he was talking about the Hurdman re-design, he mentioned that the 'angled' option was included in case there was a future conversion of the S-E Twy.

David is one to generally choose his words carefully so I take from his statement that there is probably no chance that the S-E Twy will be converted instead of the O-Train line. Alas! Everyone I talked to in the display area was talking only of the O-Train conversion and, at best, mentioned that the S-E Twy might be considered in the future. That is MIGHT be considered, despite the Council mandate. Of course, even the Council Motion is so open in its wording that there is no direct order to compare the benefits between the two conversions.

I would have liked to hear a Motion like:

Be it resolved that Staff will undertake a full cost and benefit comparison between converting the O-Train line to twin-tracked, electric Light Rail technology between Bayview and Riverside South Town Centre and the conversion of the S-E Transitway to twin-tracked, electric Light Rail technology between Hurdman and the Riverside South Town Centre, with the goal of determining a priority for converting the routes.

Be it further resolved that Staff determine an estimate for the cost of converting the O-Train line between Bayview and Confederation to single-tracked, electric Light Rail, making use of as much of the existing infrastructure as practical.

I second the motion.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Ah, thanks for the back ground on that.

Speaking of conversion of the S-E Transitway (S-E Twy); did you happen to catch the comment made by David Hopper during the formal presentation last Thursday? When he was talking about the Hurdman re-design, he mentioned that the 'angled' option was included in case there was a future conversion of the S-E Twy.

I did catch that, yes. They ought not to be considering any design that doesn't allow for it because it isn't just the SE Twy but also access to the Hospital corridor that has to be considered.

I'd better not hear any nonsense about "not required in the planning period" used as a rationale not to do this because that is incredibly short-sighted. It would probably be grounds to go off to the MoE to have the EA rejected/sent back. That said, everything moves so glacially in Ottawa that we'll be back to revisiting everything in the next TMP update before anything much is set in concrete anyway.

What I found interesting was the consequences of bad design decisions ~25 years ago with respect to things like the Transitway's Train Station: they dug out the foregarden for the station, put in two bridges and now find that it wasn't such a good alignment for LRT - and it hasn't been such a good BRT alignment either since one can't see buses at either platform until the last moment. So now it looks like the investment in those two driveway bridges and probably the massive Tremblay Rd bridge will all be for nought.

Similarly, the layout at Blair Station is not too conducive for LRT yet a change of the orientation by about 10° to the north (to make the platforms line up directly with underpass of Blair Rd) would have dealt with it with no negative effect on BRT (indeed, it would have been better) or initial cost. It was poor planning, plain and simple.

And what really concerns me is that it looks like we might be doing it again in the designs for some of the stations, in particular Blair again (and of course Hurdman). There seems little provision for facilitating eastward LRT extentions in those designs for Blair (though one of the designs is not on the web for some reason) but we've got lots of room for piling up buses.

[Richard Eade]

Yup. For a Transitway which was do be designed for simple, cheap conversion to LRT, I think they missed on several accounts.

Unfortunately, I think Hunter's motion was so weakly worded that there is no need for the S-E Transitway to be looked at until long after the O-Train is converted and the rest of the TMP built. The motion can easily be interpreted as something in addition to the existing plan. And because it is surplus to the plan, it doesn't need to be looked at until the plan is finished.

[Franky]

I've been told the Browning/Hospital Transit Link EA has been tendered. Does anyone know which company got the contract?

[Richard Eade]

I hear that St Laurent Station is getting a face-lift. Multi-coloured glass walls (think 70's) will provide a more sheltered area for people to wait for their buses. The area between the existing brick wall and the new glass will have positive pressure ventilation so it should be a cleaner environment. Yes, there will be heaters. Much of the heavy work was apparently done during the strike, so many of you have probably noticed the changes going on. The glass is expected to be installed very soon. (Cost is about $500,000.)

This should give an area similar to Rideau Centre, where there is a narrow waiting area with heaters separated by a glass wall from the outside platform.

Also, escalators are being replaced.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

I've been told the Browning/Hospital Transit Link EA has been tendered. Does anyone know which company got the contract?

It should be well underway by now since it has to be completed by year's end unless the OMB grants an extension; I would expect that the planning phase public consultation will be in April or May while the EA phase public consultation will likely be in September. I believe Morrison Hershfield got it.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Also, escalators are being replaced.

Thank goodness! I don't pass through this station very often, but whenever I do the escalators are stopped (broken down?). This must be a major inconvenience for daily travelers.

[Dado]

I'm not aware of St. Laurent's escalators ever having worked.

If we're going to go through with this tunnel business and all these other grade-separated stations with escalators, we'd better start learning how to keep St. Laurent's escalators working as a bare minimum.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

I'm not aware of St. Laurent's escalators ever having worked.

If we're going to go through with this tunnel business and all these other grade-separated stations with escalators, we'd better start learning how to keep St. Laurent's escalators working as a bare minimum.

Let's hope the 9 story escalators up from the tunnel work better.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

It should be well underway by now since it has to be completed by year's end unless the OMB grants an extension; I would expect that the planning phase public consultation will be in April or May while the EA phase public consultation will likely be in September. I believe Morrison Hershfield got it.

Thanks. Hope they will be fair and unbiased.