Navigation
User login
One Last Plea for Compromise!!!
One problem with the city's north-south project was that they didn't fully listen to the public's recommendations (especially regarding the downtown portion of the plan). This is the most important stage of planning, public input and proposal modifications based on this input. I believe the biggest/only major flaw of the FotO plan is the transfers required, especially between the downtown line and the north-south line. I would ask that the FotO please look at converting the existing north-south single track line to eLRT. This would dramatically improve your plan and according to a City of Ottawa document would cost $295 million. This would reduce the number of transfers and add more supporters to your plan (at least 20 LRT activists that I know). I know this puts the total cost of your plan just over the dreaded $1 billion mark, but I truly believe this would be a cost effective conversion. Please consider this recommendation and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerley,
Kyle Cooper
Transit user/Advocate
Calgary's C-Train
Calgary's C-Train is by far the most successful LRT system in North America. We should learn from their success instead of trying to introduce some unproven configuration involving a short downtown shuttle and unprecedented numbers of transfers.
assumptions in your proposal
Let me be clear, I assume in your compromise that you agree to the following:
and at South Keys.
at a future time.
have to pay a huge premium now.
So, all you want to do is to electrify from Bayview to Earl Armstrong.
--
Volunteer researcher, Friends of the O-train.
what about Diesel downtown?
I am not sure but I think he implied that he wanted to be able to avoid the the Train to Train Transfer that would be required at Bayview.
so electrify The N-S line and allow the trains to use the new electric downtown track.
this has problems in that
* N-S line still has limited capacity
* we have to sell the current Trains we have.
I was actually wondering something related to this.
with the Basic Friends of the O-Train plan would it not be possible to connect the downtown ELRT track with the current O-Train Track and allow the current Diesel O-train to make a right hand turn at Bayview and share the downtown track with the Electric Trains?
What sort of technical limitation are there on having the current Diesel O-Train downtown, Corners being to tight, exhaust, etc..?
also what sort of technical limitations are there in having Electric trains share track with Diesel? train boarding height, speeds, etc..?
I was just wondering. I am sure the are wonderful reasons why this can't be done. I just don't know what they are.
Re: Assumptions in your proposal
I now believe that double tracking can be held off, at least for the next two decades until it warrants being done, and then we could look at twinning the track or other options. I am interested in the idea of running multiple vehicle trains, but wandering of the costs related in expanding the platforms. A 7.5 minute frequency (only if 4 additional sidings are added to the north-south line) could be sufficient if you have 3 car trains instead of 2 car trains. I would rather not convert the SE transitway, since it would not significantly increase ridership. Any idea of the cost to convert the SE transitway compared to twinning the north-south line? Also, what is this I hear about filling in the current tunnel to make it too small for freight? I thought the city was just building another tunnel, keeping the old one in tacked. I don't agree that the line should be a federally regulated railway. As for grade separation, would this be required if we went with a single track electrified system? If not I think we could do without. "Permit access to the NCR testing facility", do you mean the NRC facility near the airport? The airport link could be done alternatively using a spur line running from the current north-south line, just south of Lester Road on the southern edge of the NRC property, then joining up with either the Airport Parkway or Thad Johnson Road. I don't agree with Walkley maintenance yard. No matter what the plan Gladstone, Walkley, and South Keys were always going to be added. I believe a park and ride at Leitrim is essential to service this area as well as the nearby Findly Creek development. An Earl Armstrong park and ride would be nice, but I think we should get even closer to the Riverside South community (possibly Limebank Road). This is evident, just look at the "Limited Vision for Riverside South?" form. Manotic Station would be nice, but not until after 2020. If including maintenance as part of the contract is cheaper or more efficient for the city in the long term, then we should include it as part of the contract. I have some other small variances with your plan as well, but no plan is perfect. I just think we should compromise and look at electrifying the north-south line. Using the diesel trains downtown on the electric track sounds interesting, however what about the smog aspect of it. You must admit this is an issue and it should at least be looked at again. Maybe there's another solution none of us are exploring, anybody else out there have an alternative to solving this issue of train to train transferring?
As for selling the existing the O-trains, we wouldn't have to necessarily do this. We could use them on another line (i.e. the Kanata North line).
That's all for now,
Kyle Cooper
Transit user/Advocate
Kyle, You mentioned: "I
Kyle,
You mentioned: "I would rather not convert the SE transitway, since it would not significantly increase ridership."
Funny, that was our reasoning for not replacing the current O-Train with eLRT. Converting a bus transitway at least brings the benefit of moving more people faster with trains. As for the cost, I know the cost of track-in-pavement is much more expensive than track alone.
I can't answer most of your other questions, but maybe someone else will.
A word about transfers: they have a bad rep, mostly due to poor timing by OC Transpo. Train to train timing will be easier for planners to handle. A transfer at Bayview is not the end of the world. I consider a transfer free ride a "nice to have" feature, but not a "need to have" for the system to be a success.
Ron
I agree double tracking the
I agree double tracking the current O-Train line isn't really needed yet , and should be looked at in 10 or 20 years. when it is needed.
As for the option of converting the SE Transitway to Track. The argument for it goes something like this. (I Think) Eventually NS will need the capacity to have some train going downtown. and the SE transitway from Hudman to Heron or Hurdman to Southkeys would be cheaper then double tracking the existing O-train Track, as there is no water in the way of the first.
on the topic of Smog and Diesel Trains down town. I don't know the calculations, maybe somebody can help with that. but it would be 1 train every 7.5 minutes or so (8 trains/hour). Would that really produce more excessive exhaust (honest question)? in comparison to the 130 buses/hour that are currently in the downtown core?
As For "Riverside South" I am about to go off on a tangent and I am sorry for that but. I get upset with this topic every time it is brought up. This is a major issue I have with the city of Ottawa. If it (Riverside South) is going to be developed, and If it is going to be more sustainable then it needs good transit access and a good community design.
However, When it is done I think it will look like a cookie cutter version of Barrhaven/Orleans/Kanata, sprawling 1/4 acre lots, possibly with a light rail going through it.
So I am mainly upset that it is being developed at all. There is lots of space inside the green zone that could be intensified , south of RockCliffe Airport, Lebreton flats, The experimental farm, and more... Why do we build so far away from downtown. the greenzone was designed to contain the sprawl why do the city planners insist on developing outside, it really annoys me. One of the major problems with Ottawa's transit system is the fact that it is so spread out. if the suburbs were half the size they are today and we made a real effort develop inside the green zone the transit situation would be much easier as we would not require frequent service (ie the 96) to places like stittsville, and my God look at Terry Fox it is the most disgusting mind boggling example of City sprawl I have every seen in my life. Most of the problems related to Ottawa Transit are caused by poor city zoning and sprawling development. any way sorry about the sideways rant.
What is the best transit use of $295M?
What is the best transit use of $295M? If I understand your proposal correctly, you believe, based on the city's information, that the incremental cost of electrifying the Bayview to Armstrong NS line is $295 million. Accepting this number for a moment, it seems that of all the possible transit uses of this incremental and discretionary investment, that eliminating a less-than-three-minute LRT-to-LRT transfer at comfortable and efficient Bayview station is the single best use of these funds, providing the most cost-effective boost to overall Ottawa's transit ridership?
I don't think it is just
I don't think it is just about the money.
I think it is also about the support you can get by doing it.
Sometimes you need to make a compromise in order to appeal to a wider audience.
Speaking only for myself, I
Speaking only for myself, I will not hesitate to change my position to something that is better at achieving the objectives we can agree are important.
However, compromise only for the sake of compromise, especially when so much hangs in the balance, is unconscionable.
You are right, it in not about the money as such, it is about what can be achieved with the money, hence my original question above. Is an incremental spend of $295M, simply to eliminate a quick transfer, the best use of our transit budget? I believe it isn't and transit systems the world over are evidence of this. There is a lot that needs to be done to double the rate of transit ridership in Ottawa. Let's get on with achieving this goal, using our money wisely to achieve the best transit ridership bang for the buck.
How about we change the theme of this thread to "One Last Plea for Reason!" Anyone who has better ideas, backed by a sound business case, will quickly get my support.
Re: Speaking only for myself, I
Wow, so much for "friends of the O-train"!
I wasn't only looking at the transfer aspect of it (even thou this was a big part of it), I was also looking at the environmental aspect, the cost efficiency aspect (electric vs. diesel), and the turning radius aspect. I was also trying to give your cause one last chance, since the amount of supports (at least the ones I've been talking to) that don't support this plan, would reconsider if eLRT was at least used on the north-south line.
Kyle Cooper
Transit user/Advocate