Problem  Community Submissions  Proposals  Progress towards a Solution  References

Create a Really Useful Light Rail Transit System

Problem

The light rail transit system (LRT) being planned for Ottawa is constrained by the reality of an existing infrastructure of buildings and roadways. The inner city roads are already clogged by too much traffic to permit more than the most basic minimum footprint for rail/streetcar transit; the less central roadways channel traffic to and from city suburbs. Therefore the most cost-effective LRT solution allows only for people transit to/from the city central area and suburbs.

The most effective light rail systems, as exemplified by European cities and examples like Toronto and other cities lucky enough to have built underground subway systems, allow people to quickly commute short distances within the city core. Their central cores, therefore, can maintain and continue to enhance their supply/demand/residential flavor and variety. Ottawa's current LRT plan will bring larger numbers of people into the city during the day, and effectively emptying the city during the night; therefore making the central core less people-friendly and reducing its purpose to becoming a business-oriented work area with the suburbs being the family- and bedroom-oriented zone.

In the evenings, the LRT economics will reduce train and bus availability. The LRT as planned will therefore not meet its objective of reducing the number and use of cars in the greater Ottawa area.

Community Submissions

Proposals

  1. Redesign the suburb so that fewer people will need to commute downtown for whatever reason. A light rail or streetcar system should be for the people who live in the city, itself.
  2. Don't feel forced to put the light rail onto the streets themselves.
  3. Consider a variety of LRT options, such as overhead light rail with its narrow cross-section and low noise factor.
  4. There may be advantages but there is no need to put both directions of rail right beside each other.
  5. Do not try to reduce the number light rail lines to only 2 or 3. With a network of multiple short but well placed lines, a transfer should be just a walk from one open train door across a platform to another open train door.
  6. Direct an elevated transit system through existing buildings rather than along existing streets in order to provide more direct and straighter transit routes. Downtown office buildings could also provide the enclosures needed for stations. The routes could be more direct.
  7. Plan the best possible transit grid (downtown) for the future, even if it is not implemented in the short term.
  8. Plan for a 2-level transportation system downtown: standardize on the best elevation and reserve that for light rail. Then standardize for another complementary elevation and reserve that for a future people walkway system, such as the +15 in Calgary. That way there will be no conflict when such future requirements arise.
  9. Implement an elevated light-rail line along the hydro corridor crossing Uplands Drive just east of Rhapsody Lane. Put a station at Uplands, and a second station where the hydro corridor meets Hunt Club Road.
  10. Build separate and independent LRT lines along Innis Road (from St. Laurent to Trim Road), and along Strandherd Road (from Prince of Wales to Cedarview). Lobby local residents and businesses to contribute to the cost.
  11. (Added 4 Sep 06) West of the Airport Parkway, move the proposed east-west route from going through the Southern Corridor north to going along just north of Walkley Rd. WHY? This brings the LRT line closer to a larger number of people and interest points.

Progress towards a Solution

Date Progress
31 Jan 06 Ned Lathrop responded: "I think in terms of this round of construction the die is cast for how we need to do it and I do believe we have the right and most cost effective solution (by the way the vehicles will be smaller, lower, and much lighter then heavy rail vehicles). Having said that the flexibility you noted for longer term planning for the Environmental Assessments for Montreal Rd. corridor and the Carling Ave Corridor are now underway does provide for flexibility on ROW and possible alternative LRT locations off the street again with all the private sector implications that entails. We are, by the way, talking to the business community along Albert and Slater and we are intending to integrate buildings into the LRT stations as part of the existing O-Train exercise so some of your concerns are being addresses there. Pedestrian access to the O-Train will be an on-going issue and as reconstruction takes place in the downtown that will be a primary concern we will also address."
27 Jan 06 I emailed Ned Lathrop to add some clarifications and updates to my original suggestions. For example, in terms of the train itself, I think we should not restrict our planning to using only the existing traffic channels (meaning streets) but also consider the ideas of encroaching on (and maybe through) actual buildings where the benefit-vs-cost tradeoff is in our favor. Existing buildings are not all built the same and some may allow for interesting possibilities. Also, with a plan in place, perhaps we can design new buildings (like the ones now filling parking lots downtown) with light-rail right-of-way possibilities. Perhaps we can direct some elevated rails through service alleyways between existing buildings. Also, in terms of pedestrian walkways, again, I think we could plan for this anyway, and proceed to design a possible system. Then we could provide incentives to building owners to gradually implement connections here and there, based on the plan. Even one connection between two streets is better than none and will encourage pedestrian and lessen vehicular traffic.
16 Jan 06 Councillor Jan Harder responded with a positive acknowledgement. Ned Lathrop also responded with a simple yet sufficiently technical overview assessing the possibilities of the points I listed above. Basically, Ned implied that for a light rail to be implemented realistically, we must use more of the existing city infrastructure - my ideas would require a greater change to the infrastructure (requiring more money and time than is available) than the light rail concepts and proposals to-date. He also forwarded my email to the project manger for the LRT EA studies
13 Jan 06 Concept first emailed to all councillors. Maria McRae forwarded the email to Mr. Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management. Councillor Janet Stavinga's office also responded, copying Mr. Peter Steacy, Program Manager in Transportation, for his review and information.
5 Sep 06 Regarding the proposed east-west LRT line, Alan Asselstine, treasurer for the Hunt Club Community Organization (HCCO) submitted a motion to move the proposed east-west route from going through the Southern Corridor north to going along just north of Walkley Rd. (See minutes for the 5 Sep 06 HCCO meeting.)

References

Home