Metrolinx strategy for funding and building Transit City and Viva

[The Mad Navigator]

Wait, I thought that was CC's job? He does live in the Imperial City afterall...

PS: I edited your post slightly

LRT: We have cookies!

 

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa made the right choice in cancelling the 1st LRT project. Plain and simple. The thing was absolute garbage. It makes the SELRT look like a great idea. Half of the line went through corn fields for f* sake!

I don't buy this "oh they should have just started it, then changed it while it was underway" argument. Get the plan right, then build it. If the plan isn't right, don't build it. And who are these "transit advocates" that you speak of? I have yet to speak to anyone involved in the transit planning world in Ottawa who preferred the old plan over the new one. The only people who do are developers in Riverside south, and the old mayor. Any transit planner with half a brain could have told you that running LRT at-grade through downtown was a bad idea. Hell, the tunnel was even studied as part of the original Transitway BRT plan in the 70s! The at-grade option was chosen because it would have raised the cost of the project substantially, and at that point the added capacity of a tunnel wasn't needed. If you've ever stood downtown waiting for the 95, 96, or 97 bus at rush hour, you'd agree that the extra capacity is definitely needed, and simply swapping out buses for trains would have done nothing.

So yes, Ottawa did make the right decision in cancelling it, and I'm glad that my city council actually had the balls to stand up for what was right. The taxpayers paid a small price for it, but it's a smaller price to pay than living with a mistake for the next 20-30 years. I only hope that Torontonians will take a page from Ottawa's book, and take a step back, and get it right. The people of Ottawa actually had the guts to stand up and say "at-grade LRT along primary corridors is not good enough". And look what they're getting: grade-separated LRT instead.

They are still building a modified North South Line as part of the new plan. Once the tunnel/first line is done, the next priority will be building the North South LRT. The Carling LRT from the old plan will also be built, and the Montreal Road line from the old plan may be built. Any line to any of Ottawa's suburbs has to go through cornfields due to the greenbelt, all the BRT lines do (and the plan is to convert those to LRT. Even the Carling Line will go along fields.

Believe me there are plenty of people who want us to reconsider the tunnel and build surface downtown to have longer lines and/or save money. The leading mayoral candidate isn't committed the tunnel and has said we may have to rethink it to reduce costs, for example.

All this Ottawa talk is getting a bit OT: But my point is that rejecting a plan at this stage (construction started or will start soon, funding committed) will set you back years, you may miss out on big funding opportunities, you may do all the studies and rethinking of the plan but end up building something similar anyways, and when the time comes around to approve the new plan, you may have the same debate all over again.

 

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa made the right choice in cancelling the 1st LRT project. Plain and simple. The thing was absolute garbage. It makes the SELRT look like a great idea. Half of the line went through corn fields for f* sake!

I don't buy this "oh they should have just started it, then changed it while it was underway" argument. Get the plan right, then build it. If the plan isn't right, don't build it. And who are these "transit advocates" that you speak of? I have yet to speak to anyone involved in the transit planning world in Ottawa who preferred the old plan over the new one. The only people who do are developers in Riverside south, and the old mayor. Any transit planner with half a brain could have told you that running LRT at-grade through downtown was a bad idea. Hell, the tunnel was even studied as part of the original Transitway BRT plan in the 70s! The at-grade option was chosen because it would have raised the cost of the project substantially, and at that point the added capacity of a tunnel wasn't needed. If you've ever stood downtown waiting for the 95, 96, or 97 bus at rush hour, you'd agree that the extra capacity is definitely needed, and simply swapping out buses for trains would have done nothing.

So yes, Ottawa did make the right decision in cancelling it, and I'm glad that my city council actually had the balls to stand up for what was right. The taxpayers paid a small price for it, but it's a smaller price to pay than living with a mistake for the next 20-30 years. I only hope that Torontonians will take a page from Ottawa's book, and take a step back, and get it right. The people of Ottawa actually had the guts to stand up and say "at-grade LRT along primary corridors is not good enough". And look what they're getting: grade-separated LRT instead.

As a resident of Ottawa, I will have to side with Waterloo Warrior. Some of what you say is true, however, the N-S LRT line was being used as a planning tool in order address peculiar transportation issues to the locations it was going to serve. It was also being directed at a market where transit was being underutilised. It was also trying to direct development into an area which could be served by rapid transit and take some of the pressure off of eastward and westward sprawl, where the city has no hope of offering rail rapid transit within the next generation and likely longer. The cost is simply too high to do so and the corridors lacking or difficult. I can't emphasize enough about the lost opportunity costs that Ottawa has experienced and the fact that the original plan is still slated to be built at some point. This shows the folly of cancelling projects that had already been approved, funded and contracts signed. Ottawa will never recover what was lost as a result of that cancellation. I also wish to point out how difficult it is for a mid sized city to finance a subway. What is spent tunneling means much less track can be laid. I fear the Edmonton example where a tunnel was built and LRT then stalled for a generation because the benefits could not easily be seen from a short LRT line. I for one believe that N-S LRT line would have built momentum faster towards the construction of additional lines and the tunnel. The N-S line could have been in operation right now, and the tunnel plans could have been just as advanced with the same funding in place. In my opinion, the current mayor who cast the deciding vote in December 2006 to cancel the N-S LRT plan could have had that line plus his tunnel and the city would have been that much further ahead. He made a foolish mistake and there is still no guarantee that the tunnel will be built. On the point of what is the better plan, that is not really a fair question, because the scale of the two projects are different. If we ever get going, and that is still a big IF, both projects will ultimately be built. Cancellation of a project that will be built anyways just illustrates the stupidity of it all.

 

[pman]

Wtf???

How did urbantoronto become a forum for discussing Ottawa transit iissues?

 

[lrt's friend]

How did urbantoronto become a forum for discussing Ottawa transit iissues?

There are lessons to be learned from the Ottawa situation for those wishing move in a completely different direction. There is much to be lost by doing this.

 

[gweed123]

As a resident of Ottawa, I will have to side with Waterloo Warrior. Some of what you say is true, however, the N-S LRT line was being used as a planning tool in order address peculiar transportation issues to the locations it was going to serve. It was also being directed at a market where transit was being underutilised. It was also trying to direct development into an area which could be served by rapid transit and take some of the pressure off of eastward and westward sprawl, where the city has no hope of offering rail rapid transit within the next generation and likely longer. The cost is simply too high to do so and the corridors lacking or difficult. I can't emphasize enough about the lost opportunity costs that Ottawa has experienced and the fact that the original plan is still slated to be built at some point. This shows the folly of cancelling projects that had already been approved, funded and contracts signed. Ottawa will never recover what was lost as a result of that cancellation. I also wish to point out how difficult it is for a mid sized city to finance a subway. What is spent tunneling means much less track can be laid. I fear the Edmonton example where a tunnel was built and LRT then stalled for a generation because the benefits could not easily be seen from a short LRT line. I for one believe that N-S LRT line would have built momentum faster towards the construction of additional lines and the tunnel. The N-S line could have been in operation right now, and the tunnel plans could have been just as advanced with the same funding in place. In my opinion, the current mayor who cast the deciding vote in December 2006 to cancel the N-S LRT plan could have had that line plus his tunnel and the city would have been that much further ahead. He made a foolish mistake and there is still no guarantee that the tunnel will be built. On the point of what is the better plan, that is not really a fair question, because the scale of the two projects are different. If we ever get going, and that is still a big IF, both projects will ultimately be built. Cancellation of a project that will be built anyways just illustrates the stupidity of it all.

As a resident of Ottawa as well, I disagree. The original transit plan was drafted by politicians and developers, for politicians and developers. Any plan that put N-S travel ahead of E-W travel does not have the benefit of the city in general in mind. While the current transit plan still includes an upgrade of the existing O-Train line (a mistake in my opinion, so what if they aren't compatible technologies, it's still a rail line), the new plan would benefit many more people than the older plan. It is essentially an upgrade to the truck of the system, where the added capacity is needed most. While I would like to see the E-W LRT extend further west (Baseline at least), the current plan is a good start.

With regards to the developer thing, I firmly believe that when taking a 1st step in transit expansion, that the interests of the existing residents in built up areas outweigh the interests of prospective future residents, who move out into the middle of a corn field, getting a cheaper new house (and me as a taxpayer paying for the infrastructure required to service that new house), and then paying for the LRT to go through that neighbourhood. With all due respect to them, screw that. I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing, and even promoting, greenfield developments so that someone who doesn't want to buy a house in the city can buy one way out in the boonies, yet still have an LRT a block away from their door. This also makes more money for developers, because with the LRT at their doorstep, housing prices go up even more. Hence why the developers were strongly in favour of the first proposal. Once the sufficient infrastructure expansions have been done within the existing urban boundary, THEN you can start planning for servicing that type of development. Until then, they can get a BRT, like the rest of the city.

Again, I welcome the delay, because I would rather live with a delay of 5 years, than live with a near billion dollar mistake for 30 years. I'm glad the first version of the plan was scrapped, because it was fundamentally flawed. The planning, political, and financial rationales behind it were not anywhere close to where they should have been in order to actually create a successful project. I see the same pattern of false rationales in play with Transit City, and that is what worries me. The city is more worried about servicing 'underserviced neighbourhoods' and LRT to every ward, than to actual solid network building.

 

[CITY_LOVER]

All,

Can someone please answer this (silly) question: If and when these four Light Rail Lines are done (by 2020 or so), will they actually be a continuous flow, in that, they would connect with each other so riders wouldn't have to transfer from one line to another or people will have to physically get off one line and onto another at each key station (like say Kennedy to go from Eglinton to Scarborough line)? It would probably be too good to be true to have a seamless connection with the four lines (i.e. one can go from Humber College station to Jane Station without transferring)? Thanks.

 

[leopetr]

All,

Can someone please answer this (silly) question: If and when these four Light Rail Lines are done (by 2020 or so), will they actually be a continuous flow, in that, they would connect with each other so riders wouldn't have to transfer from one line to another or people will have to physically get off one line and onto another at each key station (like say Kennedy to go from Eglinton to Scarborough line)? It would probably be too good to be true to have a seamless connection with the four lines (i.e. one can go from Humber College station to Jane Station without transferring)? Thanks.

The Kennedy station layout allows for Scarborough LRT and Eglinton LRT to interline or to remain separate.

Sheppard LRT will share an extended platform at Don Mills station with the Sheppard subway. This means that either the Sheppard subway can be extended later through the LRT tunnel to Consumers road or the Sheppard subway can be converted to LRT. Finch LRT will be unable to interline with Sheppard LRT at Don Mills station should it ever be extended to Don Mills.

 

[Justin10000]

Out of curiousity, how will the SELRT tunnel be built? I am assuming TBM's to tunnel under the 404? Will it even be ready by 2014?

 

[leopetr]

Out of curiousity, how will the SELRT tunnel be built? I am assuming TBM's to tunnel under the 404? Will it even be ready by 2014?

My guess is cut-and-cover. The reason they went with an LRT tunnel to Don Mills rather than a subway tunnel to Consumers was that they'd be able to make the LRT tunnel shallow, while a subway tunnel would have to be deep.

 

[Rainforest]

My guess is cut-and-cover. The reason they went with an LRT tunnel to Don Mills rather than a subway tunnel to Consumers was that they'd be able to make the LRT tunnel shallow, while a subway tunnel would have to be deep.

If the LRT platform at Don Mills is a continuation of the subway platform, then shouldn't the LRT tunnel reach same level as subway?

In fact, the LRT tunnel will probably need a larger slope as it needs to emerge just before Consumers, whereas the subway would remain below surface ...

 

[kEiThZ]

Lrt's friend,

To add to what gweed said, can you explain how the old plan would have relieved bus congestion? Keep in mind that was the whole reason Ottawa wanted to build the LRT in the first place. They wanted to relieve bus congestion. However, once the idea was on the table, it got hijacked by suburban politicians and developers. They used the excuse of an under-serviced area (BS if you ask me) and the promise of transit friendly developments (which never fully materialized to begin with) to push for their cornfield express. The politicians went along with and completely forgot all about bus congestion and the comfort and convenience of hundreds of thousands of existing riders (and voters). Then when they got strapped for cash, they cut the tunnel out. That effectively killed whatever relief on the surface they were going to get anyway.

It was a bone-headed plan. It got worse as they went along and made more and more compromises. And all for what? To largely replace an existing rail line that works fine? O'Brien bashing maybe a popular sport in Ottawa, but if there was one thing he did for that city was bring reason and logic back into transit planning and get politics out of it. They'll thank him in 10 years. And in 20 years, they'll look back and think how moronic people were to want to replace the O-Train with LRT to Barrhaven while ignoring Kanata and Orleans. The new plan puts riders, current riders, first. It does not prioritize mythical yet-to-be-built transit friendly paradises in distant cornfields. By the way, those supposedly transit friendly developers went to ask for hundreds of hectares of new land to be opened up for typical suburban development. Shows how sincere they were.