City not interested in transit alternative

otrain.jpgThe Citizen reported on Kitchissippi Councillor Christine Leadman’s new transit proposal yesterday. Ms. Leadman repeated Clive Doucet’s proposal: with the eastern train heading down Carling, instead of following the Parkway.

Interestingly, Nancy Schepers (city manager for planning, transit and the environment) says that her department didn’t seriously consider Carling as one of the potential routes the train could follow. Which isn’t surprisingly, considering that the four plans were essentially identical. Ms. Schepers also says that the Carling route would be “far more expensive” than the parkway route – which is odd, given that we haven’t seen a detailed cost analysis of the parkway route yet.

It’s a pity that this proposal didn’t go anywhere, because Carling has many of the attributes that make mass transit work: it’s surrounded by housing, and it has existing “destinations” along the route (Carlingwood mall, various medical centres, and a mix of stores). The Parkway is an easy route to follow since there isn’t any development there, but that’s precisely why it makes a lousy transit corridor.

Update: I forgot to credit the photo author. The photograph was taken by paulshannon.

4 Responses to “City not interested in transit alternative”

  1. 2008.Jul.19 @ 02:52

    The transit plan from a couple years ago had trains going up and down Carling. At that time people complained that they hadn’t considered the parkway route.

    The reason that a Carling route would be obviously “far more expensive” is that they envision a “grade-separated rapid transit” route — which implies that the train will be elevated or sunk to avoid intersections and have fewer stations than the earlier plan. Much of the parkway route is free from intersections and could therefore be built with much less expense. I surmise the idea of the current plan is to rapidly move passengers between the western edge and the city core, not to supplant existing bus coverage. However, the current plan does acknowledge that some upgrade to the Carling corridor will be required, as it is marked as “future urban transit – to be determined”.

  • 2008.Jul.19 @ 11:09

    The problem with Carling is you would be killing the speed of the network. If this plan is supposed to be rapid transit, then running it down the middle of a major avenue like that would kill service time. The Parkway is a much quicker road, and there’s a lot more space for tracks, to boot.

    Plus, how would you route tracks back up to downtown? Run them up Bronson? That’d be even worse for service. Or, you could extend the tunnel a kilometre and a half south of where it’s been planned to go, driving up costs by a significant amount.

    I agree that Carling is an important transit corridor, but it’s almost certainly the wrong place for rapid transit… we don’t want our new system to run like Toronto’s Spadina streetcar.

  • 2008.Jul.20 @ 08:59

    I agree that a Carling route would likely be more expensive, because it would have to be grade separated, but it would also be running on a more densely populated route. That makes it more useful to the folks living near Carling, which in turn makes it easier to recoup costs.

    My complaint is that the City dismissed the Carling route out of hand. If the City had crunched the numbers so that councillors and citizens could make up their own mind if the extra cost was worth it.

    As to Dave’s question about getting onto Carling from downtown: the O-train crosses Carling near Preston. That line could be extended west.

  • 2008.Jul.21 @ 01:12

    That’s a good point re: the O-Train, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that myself.

    Also, I have to apologize, as I didn’t realize you were talking about a grade-separated route down Carling; that makes much more sense than what I originally thought you were posting about. It’s a nice thought, but I doubt Ottawa could afford such a project any time in the near future. Plus, it would create some redundancy for the Bayview-Lincoln Fields stretch of the Transitway, infrastructure I’m sure the City doesn’t want to abandon.

  • Reply

    You can use these HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    If your website is claim enabled, it will be notified that you have posted here.