Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Deez

Two more notes on the timing of increments in phase 1:

1) The old NS LRT environmental assessment has a finite shelf life (I can't remember how long that is, but it's not too long), so staff will do their darndest to ensure that increment 2 is initiated before that document expires.

2) The rationale for not widening the airport parkway to 4 lanes in Phase 1 that is in the report is that the NS LRT will be constructed as part of transit Phase 1. The report then states that the parkway twinning will be pushed back to 2016-2022, implying that increment 2 will be completed before then?

Increment 2 doesn't do anything other than leads you to Increment 3. There already is rapid transit as far south as South Keys. Most of future traffic growth on the Airport Parkway will be coming from south of the Greenbelt.

We have been told that Increment 1 will at the very earliest be completed in 2017. There is a disconnect in timing.

This city council was willing to expose the taxpayer to a multi-million dollar lawsuit, so why would they be concerned about the minor issue of an expiring environmental assessment?

[Deez]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We have been told that Increment 1 will at the very earliest be completed in 2017. There is a disconnect in timing.

Read my previous post...technical info coming from a high level bureaucrat is not reliable. My conservative guess is 2015 for Tunney's-Blair.

This city council was willing to expose the taxpayer to a multi-million dollar lawsuit, so why would they be concerned about the minor issue of an expiring environmental assessment?

I'm talking city staff, not council. There's a big difference between the two.

[lrt's friend]

When I suggested taking the bus, is that the amount of people that would have ridden the LRT, wouldn't have made a dent in congestion. There can be dedicated buses lanes on another arterial corridor, or other solutions to be find. If they are planning to do bus priority on upper Bank St. they can can do it elsewhere.

Basically, there's need to be transit priority, and city hall needs to stop treating everyone the same.

Ummm, it costs a lot of money to add dedicated transit lanes to existing arterial roads, if it is even possible. Why would you even consider this as a temporary fix, if we already own a dedicated transit right of way? The Bank Street example really amounts to removing street parking during peak periods, an option not available outside of central parts of the city.

[lrt's friend]

Consider other options

The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, November 13, 2008


Re: City staff finally going the right way with east-west rail plan, Nov. 7.

I agree with columnist Randall Denley that Tunney's Pasture must be served by light rail, with the high number of commuters to that destination and that it should take precedence over the southern route for the same reason.

But, unlike the city staff, I do not consider any extension along the Ottawa River Parkway as the route. The parkway will not provide light-rail transit with any additional riders; it will not serve anyone between Lincoln Fields and Tunney's Pasture and trains will be empty outside the rush hour. It will diminish the value of the river frontage for all residents and visitors to the capital.

Bayview Station should be seen as the hub through which will eventually flow a variety of lines, including those from the east, south, west and even north from Gatineau. For the west, a fast rail line on Carling linking to the O-Train at Preston for the inner city, and a right-of-way along the Queensway or the existing rail line through Barrhaven out to Kanata for the outlying areas in the longer term makes good business sense.

The National Capital Commission has demanded an environmental assessment, including options to the parkway. The only other option being considered is the Richmond-Byron greenspace, which presents many obstacles. We must not allow the city to back the NCC into a corner. Other options must be considered.

Kathryn Mikoski,

Ottawa

The lack of consensus was exactly the reason why the western route was not prioritized the last time. We have also mostly forgotten the controversy when they tried to use the Byron corridor for the Transitway in the 1980s.

Plan let us down in Riverside South

The Ottawa Citizen


Thursday, November 13, 2008



CREDIT: Wayne Cuddington, The Ottawa Citizen
Marion King said people bought homes believing that Riverside South would get light-rail transit. But council cancelled the contract.

Re: Riverside South dream now dead: councillor, Nov. 8.

I thought it was too much to hope for, that city staff might recommend the most practical, easiest and speediest line to build first, where a lot of the preparatory work has been done. But no, as usual, political considerations won the day.

So what happens now to the thousands of residents of Riverside South community who purchased homes on the firm promise -- there was, after all, a signed contract between the City of Ottawa and a rail consortium -- of rapid transit to this area?

Already, huge amounts of our property taxes have been wasted on environmental and planning studies for the train that will not now run. Another huge amount is being wasted on the lawsuit over the cancelled rail contract.

I shall be paying for the rest of my life for a massive transit project that will be of no benefit to me since, by the time it is running, I shall probably be in a nursing home, if not in my grave. I also pay a full transit levy for a miserable bus service that offers a half-hourly bus service to South Keys. Even with a dire budget situation, councillors are unwilling to recoup what they can from the cancelled transit project. How much more are they willing to squander?

But wait, perhaps there is a silver lining. Just possibly in my lifetime there might be a Strandherd Bridge. It will bring lots of noisy traffic through my neighbourhood, but it might also give me a choice of two buses -- one to South Keys, and one to Barrhaven. I can hardly wait.

Marion King,

Ottawa

A little sarcasm from a south end resident.

[waterloowarrior]

Staff report in HTML format - there are links for the attachments mentioned previously and the supporting studies (e.g. Using VIA)

here's a pic of the plan btw

Figure 2: 2031 Rapid Transit Network



Recommended Transit Infrastructure - Phase 1



Figures 12: Recommended Transit Infrastructure - Phase 2




Figure 3: Terminus Locations Considered in Riverside South Community

[waterloowarrior]

Carling Avenue memo

[Franky]

Would hooking up the General Hospital to the via tracks make sense? It would be much less costly than tunneling under the existing tracks to meet up with a transitway come rail-way I expect? Are there some challenges with this approach? Can the via tracks eventually be double-tracked?

[lrt's friend]

The Via Rail/O-Train report covers many matters already discussed and are really common sense. What seems so simple has a lot of complications. The Via Rail scheduling and on-time performance issue alone would make it impossible to achieve the service levels discussed for a Barrhaven branch. It is quite clear that no time saving will result, and a multi-transfer trip will have limited attractiveness. One thing it doesn't cover, are any complications for conversion of the O-Train after an extension.

[Kitchissippi]

Also in the staff report:

It should to be noted that the term “Western Parkway” refers to a rapid transit corridor connecting the Lincoln Fields Station to the Dominion Station, which in turn joins the segment of the West Transitway to Bayview and downtown. Options for this connection include the Ottawa River Parkway, the Byron Corridor and the abandoned rail corridor. Exact location is subject to a future Environmental Assessment Study.

So it's clear the western link has three options. Since they've been creative enough to insert the term "increment" for phases, you'd think they would have come up with another name for this corridor.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Via Rail/O-Train report covers many matters already discussed and are really common sense. What seems so simple has a lot of complications. The Via Rail scheduling and on-time performance issue alone would make it impossible to achieve the service levels discussed for a Barrhaven branch. It is quite clear that no time saving will result, and a multi-transfer trip will have limited attractiveness. One thing it doesn't cover, are any complications for conversion of the O-Train after an extension.

Forgive me for questioning a Delcan report, but wouldn't a few sidings to let the oncoming train by negate much of the "blackout" time caused by via trains?

[p_xavier]

I remember someone talking about this, from the report:

As the number of trains and meets increases the
flexibility in the service diminishes and delays on one train will hold up the rest of the service. The
complexity grows geometrically, that is twice as many trains and meet points are four times more complex
to operate. Providing service on two branches would further complicate the operating scenario.

This is a linear growth. It's the same service on a subway line, if a train stops at a station. It holds up the rest of the system, linearly. It's not because it uses one line that it's in any way different.

To determine if this service will provide an attractive trip, an analysis of the complete trip is necessary.

The following “trips” compare the total travel time from Fallowfield Station to Mackenzie King Station (Rideau Centre) via the two routes:


Trip #1 – Current Bus Trip
o Arrive at Fallowfield Station
o 2 minute wait for first departure (half an average headway based on current scheduled
departures)
o 32 minutes to Mackenzie King Station via Express service
o 34 minutes to Mackenzie King Station via Route 95
o Total time is estimated at 34-36 minutes


Trip #2 – Expanded O-Train Trip
o Arrive at Fallowfield Station
o 5 minute wait for first departure (half the estimated 10-minute service headway of a service operated like the O-Train)
o 16 minute train trip (based on the VIA schedule for the same trip, with no intermediate stops)
o 2-3 minute walk transfer to Train Station on the Transitway (240 metre walk plus stairs or elevator)
o 2 minute wait for next departure (half an average headway based on current scheduled departures)
o 9 minute trip to Mackenzie King Station
o Total time is estimated at 34-35 minutes

They used a trivial station!!!!

It seems to me that at least, the conclusion is appropriate:

There is merit in considering the extension of the O-Train and the use of the VIA Rail tracks between the Fallowfield and Train Stations, there are substantial capital costs as well as risk, approval and regulatory issues to be overcome. Operational challenges will also limit the ability of the service to respond to ridership.

The ridership predicted for the Fallowfield to Train Station leg is quite low, as there is no busy destination for Nepean residents at the Train Station. The additional transfer and trip into downtown combined with the walk between platforms at the transfer will not encourage ridership.

And that's where they could start a bigger network. It's evident that people look for the shorter route, and not only for the lack of transfer (where they will anyways with the LRT).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Via Rail/O-Train report covers many matters already discussed and are really common sense. What seems so simple has a lot of complications. The Via Rail scheduling and on-time performance issue alone would make it impossible to achieve the service levels discussed for a Barrhaven branch. It is quite clear that no time saving will result, and a multi-transfer trip will have limited attractiveness. One thing it doesn't cover, are any complications for conversion of the O-Train after an extension.

Common sense is used by people who can't explain properly and can't prove their thoughts with facts. I think you're passed this stage. Nobody said it was simple, just that it's feasible and done in other cities. With the low level of costs, it's an attractive solution.

If there's anything, these trains travel at half the speed they should, with the prior E-W LRT plan, that corridor was to support full speed trains, even with the complaints of the residents (reason for the slowness). For someone working in the East end, and a dowtown by-pass, it's much more faster than the Transitway.

[lrt's friend]

Forgive me for questioning a Delcan report, but wouldn't a few sidings to let the oncoming train by negate much of the "blackout" time caused by via trains?

We have to remember that the intent of this route was to provide either a faster route into the city from Barrhaven or to provide a temporary replacement while the Transitway was being converted. The Via route fails on both accounts. There are repeated references to expected headways of 10 minutes or better, which cannot be achieved with 14 Via Rail trains on the same track, and some of them running during peak periods. The report does talk about the issues surrounding mixing trains and intermediate sidings.

And that's where they could start a bigger network. It's evident that people look for the shorter route, and not only for the lack of transfer (where they will anyways with the LRT).

No, people look for the fastest route. With Via Rail's on time performance, people will quickly learn that the Via Rail route could entail significant possibilities of delays, which will send them flooding to the more reliable route, the Transitway.

You know, anything is pretty much possible, if we are willing to pay for it. The report talks about parallel track but also the costs of doing this. It seems to me that we are just trying to find excuses for not using the right of way that the city already owns and to not use the bridge that has to be built anyways.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Carling Avenue memo

You know, the Carling route could be priced a little cheaper than an express bus directly to the city core. Patrons from Kanata for example would have a choice of slower/cheaper train and faster/more expensive bus.

[lrt's friend]

Common sense is used by people who can't explain properly and can't prove their thoughts with facts. I think you're passed this stage. Nobody said it was simple, just that it's feasible and done in other cities. With the low level of costs, it's an attractive solution.

If there's anything, these trains travel at half the speed they should, with the prior E-W LRT plan, that corridor was to support full speed trains, even with the complaints of the residents (reason for the slowness). For someone working in the East end, and a dowtown by-pass, it's much more faster than the Transitway.

You keep talking about commuter trains, while people are demanding rapid transit. There is a big difference. I have said this before. We have hundreds of buses coming in from the suburbs everyday. People are not going to be satisfied with one, two or even ten commuter trains per day as a replacement. Commuter trains are for much bigger cities than Ottawa where traditional transit is much too slow as you get to the more distant suburbs. The various reports even address this, pretty well killing the idea of commuter rail entirely, simply because more distant communities are too small and only economically served by buses for the forseeable future.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You keep talking about commuter trains, while people are demanding rapid transit. There is a big difference. I have said this before. We have hundreds of buses coming in from the suburbs everyday. People are not going to be satisfied with one, two or even ten commuter trains per day as a replacement. Commuter trains are for much bigger cities than Ottawa where traditional transit is much too slow as you get to the more distant suburbs. The various reports even address this, pretty well killing the idea of commuter rail entirely, simply because more distant communities are too small and only economically served by buses for the forseeable future.

I never said it was replacing rapid transit, complementing it. Remember when we calculated the distance DT Toronto to its suburbs then DT Ottawa then its surburbs? Ottawa can fit all of these ciites and still have room to spare.

Anyways, I'll enjoy a new commuter train in Montreal, since it's 500m from my workplace, so it'll take me half to the time to get there. Sure there will only be one in the morning, but I surely won't miss it.

[lrt's friend]

I never said it was replacing rapid transit, complementing it. Remember when we calculated the distance DT Toronto to its suburbs then DT Ottawa then its surburbs? Ottawa can fit all of these ciites and still have room to spare.

Anyways, I'll enjoy a new commuter train in Montreal, since it's 500m from my workplace, so it'll take me half to the time to get there. Sure there will only be one in the morning, but I surely won't miss it.

And you make my exact point. The commuter train cuts your travel time in half, just as the Laval subway saved considerable time. A Barrhaven commuter does not.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And you make my exact point. The commuter train cuts your travel time in half, just as the Laval subway saved considerable time. A Barrhaven commuter does not.

Have you read the report? Yes it does. They chose a half speed train, and additional waiting time, PLUS going back downtown, and it was as fast as the bus...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Have you read the report? Yes it does. They chose a half speed train, and additional waiting time, PLUS going back downtown, and it was as fast as the bus...

What are you talking about? Half speed trains? You are using existing track, with speed limits and level crossings in an urban area. Let's be realistic about how fast trains will be allowed to operate. Why would you not include waiting time? It is part of a passenger's trip. Why would you not include the trip back to downtown? It is the most important destination. The report specifically mentions that there is little demand for service between Barrhaven and the Via Rail Station, so it is quite irrelevant to compare with the Via Rail station as a destination. The whole point of looking at this route is as an alternative route to downtown. If we are looking at a cross-town downtown bypass route, this is not the one you would choose.

[lrt's friend]

I'm afraid newest rail plan is doomed

Canwest News Service


Friday, November 14, 2008


Re: Transit plan draws cautious praise, Nov. 11.

After attending the transportation master plan update on Monday, I realize that the city's plans for light rail are doomed.

This plan has changed so many times that it is little wonder there is mass confusion on any future direction. First, there was a north-south plan that was rejected, then a east-south plan that was cast aside and now an east-west plan is proposed.

After listening to the city officials make their pitch for this latest proposal, I was struck that their hearts weren't in it. The risk assessment was very pessimistic to say the least and the costs appear overwhelming, especially since the city still faces a serious lawsuit after the debacle of the cancellation of the north-south contract.

The city requires advance funding from both the federal and provincial governments which in these economic times offer no guarantee.

This is basically a 22-year plan and it was pointed out by the KPMG representative that there was a 50-per-cent chance that the costs would be at least 10-per-cent higher than the technical estimates of $4.7 billion and this even before the first shovel hits the ground.

And the National Capital Commission approval for use of the Ottawa River Parkway is required, contractors have to be obtained and the conversion period to light rail will be risky as will be the costs.

I also see serious political divisions among the councillors with lobbying for Carling Avenue and Riverside South routes.

There is a major mining excavation right downtown for a central tunnel at the same time the Ottawa Congress Centre is being built and the result will be chaos for any daily commute for years.

It's great to have a good transportation plan, but what I have seen so far sees a white flag being raised before anybody boards a light-rail train which the city manager says with the best-case scenario would not be ready until 2017.

Randy Gordon,

Ottawa

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

One has to wonder what the impacts of the litigation settlement will be on the city budget. What more will this city have to give up as a result? We have already spent $244,000 so far this year, defending the LRT contract cancellation, coincidentally, enough to have paid for a new swan house, that our mayor claims we cannot afford. This is but a drop in the bucket compared with the litigation costs that we will have to pay as the court case date approaches, and then there will be the settlement itself.