Navigation
User login
Limited Vision for Riverside South?
I have my share of reservations with the FOTO plan, but one element I wish to address now is the limited vision for Riverside South. One of the defining characteristics in planning Riverside South was to foster a transit-first community by extending light rail directly into the community. I live near Carling Station, and looking at the current O-Train route, it's the only stop that's truly pedestrian accessible within a large catchment area. Forget about the Park-and-Ride -- you can leave your car at home in the driveway and still get to work easily.
Park-and-Rides have their place, but looking at the FOTO plan, there's a definite lack of imagination since it completely forgoes the concept of creating pedestrian-accessible transit stations. Why are we stopping southern expansion with the addition of two more Park-and-Rides several kilometres to the east of the existing and future nucleus of Riverside South? Why are we essentially inviting people to drive their cars every day in the morning and afternoon when, with some foresight, we can foster and service another pedestrian-accessible catchment area as well?
One of the serious roadblocks emerging in creating an east-west rapid transit corridor is that outside of the Transitway, there simply isn't an ideal grade-seperated rail corridor. In the case of Riverside South, we have the opportunity to do just that, and yet, with FOTO, we're glued to existing track.
I realize by virtue of the current plan that these points are not a priority for FOTO. Nevertheless, I wanted to ask to see -- is it possible? Did FOTO provide recommendations to the city in their evaluations of the proposed Riverside route with North-South LRT? Could we create a new single-track configuration to the west and integrate successfully with current O-Train? Could the North-South project route be used (with its EA approvals) or would the FOTO recommend a different westward route, say along Armstrong Road?
North-South line is one link in the transit chain
I agree with the fact that there needs to be an overall transit strategy that will tackle both east-west and north-south service. In regards to the comment about LRT creating a pedestrian friendly community the CTrain in Calgary does not go directly through the heart of a lot of the suburban areas. There are community buses and Park and Rides that bring people to the LRT stations and the LRT transports them to their destinations.
There is one issue that no one seems to be discussing and that is how much the City can afford in the current landscape of the City's budget. How much can the City actually afford to absorb in regards to a transit expansion. If we can't afford too much then a more economical solution (like the FOTO plan) is required.
Anthony Gagne
Gloucester, Ontario
Limited Vision for Riverside South
If we are going to convert the north-south line to electric, we need to run it to a major terminus. Confederation Station is an awkward location and is not a natural terminus. The vast majority of the traffic running north on the O-Train is originating from Greenboro Station at the present time auction image hosting. We can't disrupt this traffic. Greenboro Station serves a Park & Ride, has a major shopping centre attached, and is the main transfer station for all south-east bus routes. It would be a much more suitable terminus. Since something needs to be done for Riverside South, I would suggest that it be further extended as far as Leitrim Road. There is no sense running an O-Train for the short distance between Leitrim and South Keys streaming video web hosting. As Riverside South grows, we could then extend it further into the community. In other words, I am suggesting a phased in approach to the north-south line over a number of years or an electrified version of the initial FOTO plan. I think this could be saleable to the public especially if we start work on an east-west line as well. There is a new group being established to try to find an alternative LRT approach. I hope you will participate budget hosting. I will find out if we can set up some sort of contact method without revealing personal e-mail addresses here. I think I'm already in the group you’re talking about. Check for "Cooper" or "rcoop" in the list of email recipients.
Riverside South
FOTO has placed its stations far from Riverside South since the diesel technology cannot make the turns necessary to follow the existing LRT corridor into Riverside South. To use diesel technology, would require a new corridor following a slow curve south of Armstrong Road. This would require a redesign of the Riverside South community plan and acquisition of new property. If we wait too long, this won't be possible at all.
An east-west O-Train is proposed to run from Kanata to the Via Rail Station. These trains cannot be switched to the north-south single track line without a slow coupling/decoupling operation near Billings Bridge.
Super-elevated curves
David Jeans also writes:
Turn restrictions for diesel light rail were only ever quoted in reference
to tight turns on downtown streets. However no such tight turns were
actually part of the final plan, except for an unnecessary one at Bayview.
The curves in Riverside south, as planned, would not have been a problem so
long as they were superelevated to allow the normal operating speed.
Coupling and uncoupling of Diesel LRT vehicles is not a "slow" operation but
is fully automatic and conrtolled from the driver's cab.
The writer does not know that at Confederation we proposed to reinstate the
1966 connecting track on the northwest side, and not to use the sharply
curved connecting track on the northeast side.
So the trains could have turned north to Bayview without a reversal and
without a slow speed restriction.
David Jeanes
Leitrim station
David Jeans has pointed something else out in our discussions of your post.
In the Chiarelli plan there were actually only two stations in Riverside South.
One at Leitrim, and a second station closer to River. Most of the development in Riverside
South would therefore not be served by walk-in transit. There would have to be feeder buses and park'n'ride. The FOTO plan moves the large park'n'ride to Earl Armstrong Rd,
rather than Leitrim, eliminating a number of road widenings that would otherwise have
been required.
It is true, one can envision adding additional stations --- but those were not in the final
plans, and would have added even more travel time for Barrhaven users.
I can tell you that Friends of the O-Train would like nothing more than to have Riverside
South be a sustainable, walkable community. One in which nobody was required to
own any cars. A Glebe or Westboro or Sandy Hill or ... but the design that we saw
simply didn't justify spending a billion dollars, and making it certain that no other
existing community would ever get any transit improvements for at least 15 years.
Volunteer researcher, Friends of the O-train.
difficult turns
GC, the major reason why the proposed Chiarelli line was so slow (it's maximum speed though Riverside South was never above 50km/h. The Siemens vehicles can go much faster) is because of the extensive number of gratuitous curves. This includes one
curved bridge across Findlay creek, which was probably 4 times the cost of a straight bridge.
As far as we can tell, the only reason for the route of the Chiarelli line was so that the train would visit each of the landowners properties. If there is in fact a need to extend to Riverside South, this could easily be done by running along the Earl Armstrong right of way, adjacent to the road. If, as it claimed, that this was going to be a sustainable, walkable community, then Earl Armstrong Road would be walkable.
It is ironic that you should claim that the route is the problem --- this very long route is what contributed significantly to the defeat of the Chiarelli plan. The circuitous route through Riverside South added 10-15 minutes to the travel time, making it take longer from Barrhaven than express buses. That was among the things that killed the plan.
If someone wanted to argue that the eLRT from downtown to Barrhaven via Riverside South was sensible, the first thing they want to to would be to fix that part of the plan.
As for the switch from NS to E/W. There is no coupling required, although that might
be an option. This kind of thing is done regularly on many systems, and it can easily be done while passengers are boarding. There are numerous other operational ways to do things. Most of these things would be done at Confederation Station, not at Billings Bridge.
Volunteer researcher, Friends of the O-train.
Landowners
I think you should be very careful about making unsubstantiated comments about land ownership affecting the route of LRT through Riverside South. I am looking at the Chiarelli plan right now and it seems to me that the route is designed to make as much of the Riverside South community to be within walking distance of the route. If we abandon this route, then the Riverside South community plan will have to be completely redesigned.
The comments about speed are kind of silly. I suspect the 50km/hour speed is an average speed including station stops. The curves are not the determining factor concerning speed. I am sure that the curves were designed given the capabilities of the equipment chosen. Whether you are talking about diesel or electric, the speed in an urban setting will be the same. You will never have 100km/hour trains within the city for safety reasons.
Two stations (not one) were to be placed right within the Riverside South community from Day 1. This was in addition to the Leitrim station. 3 further stations, each with walk in capabilities were being placed in Barrhaven. One of those stations served the largest shopping centre in the area and was to provide excellent transit access to it from much of the community that the shopping centre was to serve. More stations were to be added as both Barrhaven and Riverside South grew, adding further to the walk on capability. 3 Park & Ride lots were to be added, one west of the Rideau River. The FOTO plan does not compete as far as walk on, or even Park and Ride capabilities. Stations at Leitrim & Armstrong (they keep moving) are not within walking distance of Riverside South and neither location is good for Manotick residents.
Yes, travel time considerations had a negative impact on the saleability of the Chiarelli plan. Interestingly, the wards served by the Chiarelli line overwhelming elected or re-elected councillors who supported the line, despite having candidates who opposed it. It was residents who wanted an East-West line first (and I presume they expect direct downtown access) who really defeated the plan. The fact of the matter is, whether buses could reach downtown a few minutes faster or not, many other locations would become much more accessible by transit for Barrhaven residents. I suspect that many downtown travellers from Barrhaven would swtich to the train because of the comfort factor despite slightly longer travel times. The alternative and more direct route using the Via Rail line to Barrhaven proposed by FOTO has still not been proven to be feasible. And if it doesn't prove feasible or if it turns out to be more expensive to build, then what do we do?
Whether coupling is automatic or not, that would not be the main source of delay. Obviously trains would have to very slowly come together in order to be coupled. Schedules are also never perfect and one train or another will have to wait. It might be 15 seconds, or a minute or maybe more. It all adds up. Certainly, trains that don't need to be coupled can run faster than those that do. I am rather surprised that you now say that coupling will not be required. Why would it not be necessary when trains from South Keys will be running at the maximum frequency allowed by the single track running north to Bayview?
I have used the O-Train only once despite living in the south end. It is was very nice but because it does not go downtown, it is highly unlikely that I will ever use it again. Why does FOTO not compromise and agree to convert the north-south line to electric, even as a single track line, so at least the trains can go directly into downtown? We need some compromise so that all LRT supporters can come together, otherwise we will simply end up with more roads and Transitway extensions. Virtually every other city that has implemented LRT in North America, has chosen electric trains and has provided direct access from the suburbs into downtown. Calgary's wildly successful C-Train is a perfect example.
GC said: "I think you should
GC said: "I think you should be very careful about making unsubstantiated comments about land ownership affecting the route of LRT through Riverside South. I am looking at the Chiarelli plan right now and it seems to me that the route is designed to make as much of the Riverside South community to be within walking distance of the route. If we abandon this route, then the Riverside South community plan will have to be completely redesigned."
OttawaLRT replies: If that is what you believe then perhaps you should be redirecting your energy towards re-designing the RS community plan. Council has definitively voted down any LRT plan through Riverside South and even in July they voted to remove almost all the RS station stops.
GC said: "The comments about speed are kind of silly. I suspect the 50km/hour speed is an average speed including station stops. The curves are not the determining factor concerning speed. I am sure that the curves were designed given the capabilities of the equipment chosen. Whether you are talking about diesel or electric, the speed in an urban setting will be the same. You will never have 100km/hour trains within the city for safety reasons."
OttawaLRT replies: The EA stated that the average speed along the NS, including stops would be 35 km/hr. Page 26 "Baseline assumptions for the 2021 planning horizon indicated an operating speed for the LRT of approximately 35 km/hr over its length with the exception of the downtown where 20 km/hr speeds were applied throughout the downtown"
GC said: "The FOTO plan does not compete as far as walk on, or even Park and Ride capabilities. Stations at Leitrim & Armstrong (they keep moving) are not within walking distance of Riverside South and neither location is good for Manotick residents."
OttawaLRT replies: It is not attempting to be. FOTO's stations at Leitrim (2007) & Armstrong (after an EA addendum) include a park & ride and are to be served by community buses in Riverside South
GC said: "Yes, travel time considerations had a negative impact on the saleability of the Chiarelli plan."
OttawaLRT replies: That is only one many reasons. A cost of ~$1 million per net new peak hour transit rider is another reason.
GC said: "Interestingly, the wards served by the Chiarelli line overwhelming elected or re-elected councillors who supported the line, despite having candidates who opposed it. "
OttawaLRT replies: They also voted overwhelmingly for mayoral candidates that opposed the Chiarelli plan's meandering LRT. And last week in O'Brien's poll reported, at best, divided support for the Chiarelli plan and gave a low priority to LRT service for their community.
GC said: "Why does FOTO not compromise and agree to convert the north-south line to electric, even as a single track line, so at least the trains can go directly into downtown?"
OttawaLRT replies: Because the Chiarelli plan cost ~$30M+/km and the O-Train cost ~$3M/km. Ottawa has much more pressing transit and LRT priorities, serving more people and generating more net new ridership than to blow the whole wad wastefully on one route that, according to the city's ridership study would only generate net new ridership, over *existing* transit services, that amounted to less than a commuter 1000 cars per day.
GC said: "We need some compromise so that all LRT supporters can come together, otherwise we will simply end up with more roads and Transitway extensions."
OttawaLRT replies: We agree LRT supporters should come together.
GC said: "Virtually every other city that has implemented LRT in North America, has chosen electric trains and has provided direct access from the suburbs into downtown. Calgary's wildly successful C-Train is a perfect example."
OttawaLRT replies: Yes, dLRT is a new technology just introduced within the last ten years. Its use is expanding in Europe and the US. At FOTO, we are pragmatic and rational, not dogmatic. There are strengths and weaknesses with each technology. We care about holistic transit solutions for the city, not just one line or one community. We want Ottawa to re-commit to achieving its stated objective that 30% of peak-hour commuters will use transit, and find the transit solutions that enable this.
Let Us Compromise!
I definitely agree with GC, we need to compromise and put together a plan that not only includes the vision of LRT advocates but also the people who actually ride the busses/O-Train everyday.
You (the "Friends of the O-Train") must admit your plan is a bit flawed by not converting to e-LRT on the existing O-train line. Having people transfer when they don't have too, just to save money, is not the most effective solution. Your plan even goes as far as converting to e-LRT to Carleton U, in the future, and adding more passing tracks. This sounds a lot like a double track e-LRT to me (except for the double tunnel under Dow's Lake). Why not modify your plan to see at least see an e-LRT run to Confederation? Like all plans it’s not perfect, but it at least you would show some compromise to the most conflicted part of your plan.
After reading the latest information/comments on this and other sources I will be modifying "My proposal" and I hope to see modifications make to the FotO plan. Who knows maybe you'll gain more support for your plan!
Good luck in the fight for an even better LRT system for Ottawa.
Kyle Cooper
Transit user/Advocate
Your plan even goes as far
Your plan even goes as far as converting to e-LRT to Carleton U, in the future, and adding more passing tracks.
That's news to us. The Carleton line remains dLRT in all of our published plans.
We have discussed when/if it would make sense to convert it to eLRT, and our
conclusion is that there is no need to do so during the period of the current official plan (2020), possibly never.
Please make sure to come to next week's meeting in Barrhaven, some other future meeting, or contact us directly to arrange a presentation.
Michael Richardson. lifelong Transit user
Volunteer researcher, Friends of the O-train.