Optimizing Ottawa’s Core Rapid Transit System

Dr. John. K. Walker

88 Starwood Rd. Nepean, ON, K2G 1Z5

See http://pages.istar.ca/~jwalker for links and updates.

Next Steps/Summary

Public transit is still the main issue of the council in Ottawa and the region.  Mr. Jarrett Walker, an international public transit expert is in “broad agreement” with the author’s bus rapid transit (BRT) plan as is Mr. A. Haydon.  The NCC transit and traffic officials also have some concerns about the proposed LRT and Minister J. Baird is also keen on a less expensive plan.  Battery electric transit buses that can travel 70 km on a quick ten minute charge are now available from Proterra in the US and they are now in 7 U.S. cities. Vossloh Kiepe now have some smart bi and tri-articulated hybrid Diesel buses that can go half a kilometre on their batteries and they also have fuel cell hybrid articulated buses.  Such green buses are important and ideal for Ottawa’s and STO’s BRT transit systems and with new subways they could improve the service, save $~0.5 billion and make it greener and faster than the city’s proposed LRT plan.

· A recent study has found that BRT service is a third the capital and also operating cost of LRT systems which is being considered by the city.  Furthermore LRT typically travel at half the speed of buses. Hence buses provide faster and better service for downtown business and offices and future adjacent sub grade shopping malls.  The proposed 4 lane bus subways for Ottawa’s downtown core with battery electric or plug-in hybrid, articulated, bi-articulated and eventually double-decker tri-articulated electric buses provides quicker and better service to both the local and the surrounding suburban commuters. Because the LRT must have at least a two minute headway its maximum capacity is about 25,000 ppdph while a bus needs only 10 seconds or so and its maximum capacity is about 50,000 ppdph. The city will have a train every 5 min. so they can only double this capacity and the line will be a full capacity of ~25,000ppdph. Furthermore the LRT cannot readily go into a community and pick up passengers like a regular or smart bus can and therefore most commuters would have to waste time transferring from a local bus to the proposed LRT system. The author’s BRT plan also provides better service to those riders travelling to Gatineau and for the STO buses that bring riders to Ottawa.

· Ottawa’s proposed $2.1 b LRT first stage appears to be more expensive than a comparable BRT (~$1.5 b).  The LRT plan causes huge traffic and passenger jams at each end of the line for transferring riders on and off the awkward and slow LRT system.  These traffic and human jams will cause about a ten minute delay and ascending and descending 2 levels of stairs or escalators to the deep tunnels will cause another ten minute delay in commute time during peak periods.  Hence most commuters will spend at least 30 minutes more and more hassle (transfers) commuting to and from the downtown core each day and would be very frustrated.  The commuter will also have to pay more for this degraded service as will the property tax payer and also the provincial and Federal taxpayers.  Possibly 20% or more of the riders will probably be completely frustrated and use other methods of commuting such as car pooling or using new electric bikes and scooters or possibly work at home more often.

· The expensive LRT only reduces the bus traffic by 50% on Albert and Slater while the proposed BRT system removes nearly all the bus traffic on both Albert and Slater to initially one subway under Queen.  Note this 4 lane BRT system permits the use of local buses as well as cross town and intercity buses. It also permits the proven skip and stop technique so it is faster than LRT which must stop at every station.  Furthermore it saves about 380,000 tonnes of GHGs annually versa 94,000 tonnes for the city’s LRT.  This is an important factor as the world is headed for several centuries of wild and wacky weather. GHG emissions need to be reduced to one tonne per capita per year ASAP.  The LRT is also about 5 times more expensive on a per rider basis than the BRT option.  Obviously the LRT is not the optimum solution to Ottawa’s downtown congested streets, pollution and cost problems and the already long commute time for many riders.

· Ottawa’s proposed LRT with the large boring machine also provides limited opportunities for local contractors and workers and hence most of the resources for this ~$800 m aspect of the project will not remain in Ottawa.  Furthermore the machine cannot make sharp turns and thereby limits the choice of an efficient route in the canal/Rideau Centre region. The deep tunnels are also adjacent to the Chaudière fault and there is a good chance of an earthquake in the 100 year life of the tunnels.  In particular, a recent study by Atkinson and Pal found that the downtown region just west of the canal is at high risk for nearby earthquakes (magnitude 6) owning to the soil and bedrock.  The risks and liabilities of such an event are enhanced by tunnelling near numerous large buildings and are of some concern.  The cut and cover method with precast sections is safer and makes more accessible and neater tunnels and corers than the proposed LRT tunnel.  They can also be constructed in stages and in a couple of years by local contractors.

· The first proposed 4 lane tunnel for an expanded BRT system is under Queen Street as it avoids disrupting the heavy traffic on the Albert and Slater streets. It is linked to Rideau with a two lane tunnel under Elgin and the canal. The subway would then turn up Dalhousie and then move over to Waller St. and then onto the old transitway. The subway could be made by the cut and cover technique with precast sections so it does not disrupt much traffic and is relatively easy to construct with preformed sections.  Note these subways are readily accessible to the street for the commuter.  They also provide good access to businesses along Queen and adjacent streets and to the NAC and the Rideau Centre.  The proposed BRT plan would also be the first stage of a “Confederation BRT Subway” linking Ottawa and Hull. The second phase would be under Dalhousie to St. Patrick and then to a new two layer Alexandra Bridge for commuters going to and from Gatineau.  The NCC might provide a third of the cost of the “Confederation Subway” and the platforms and stairs could be finished in red granite like the Confederation Boulevard. This BRT subway could readily accommodate green STO buses.

The Queen St. subway will be at capacity in a decade or so and a second 4 lane BRT subway could be under Slater to Elgin. Initially some traffic could use ramps to the surface and then cross Elgin to the Mackenzie-King Bridge and with more ramps to the main subway.  Some of the Slater traffic could also be routed down a new Elgin–Metcalfe–O’Conner-Lansdowne Park–Main subway to the Southeast Transitway for rapid access for Ottawa south and Riverside South commuters.  These extra lines are not possible with the LRT system.

These two subways will be at capacity in a few decades and a third BRT subway could be under Albert St. and then with a two lane tunnel under Elgin St. and the canal and also Nicolas and then under Daly to Waller and the main subway.

· The proposed electric BRT system can also readily accommodate plug-in hybrid buses which the city could upgrade to with the new hybrid buses.  It is recommended that the city acquire a hundred or so plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid and bi-articulated hybrid buses ASAP to relieve the congestion to and from Orleans and Kanata.  No new expensive trains and associated tracks, overhead power lines and special train service garage(s) and associated test track are required. Such facilities are about three times the capital cost of similar plug-in bi-articulated buses and three times the operating cost and are inflexible.  The LRT system would possibly double the cities debt and degraded the service because of the extra transfers, slower trains and the 2 escalator trip to and from the surface.

· The proposed electric BRT subways with 4 lane (2 express) tunnels can be constructed block by block and in stages as resources become available while the LRT must be made in one big dig and would take until 2018+ to complete.  The LRT system is not operational until the tunnel and all the stations are finished so the old bus transitway would be disrupted along the eastern and western part and at each end of the line for several years.

· The proposed BRT system does not need to have the Tunney’s Pasture, Campus, Lees, Hurdman, St. Laurent, Cyrville and Blair stations revamped at this time and thereby saves several hundred million dollars.  However, the smaller stations should be on a second lane so that express bus can readily pass a loading bus. Such buses can also provide a smooth ride with an inexpensive ball-in-tube inclinometer which the driver can use to control the speed when on curves to minimize the lateral forces on the riders.

· The proposed LRT route swings north across Confederation Square and other potential routes which limits the further expansion of transitway tunnels in this critical region of the downtown core.  Furthermore the city’s proposed rail tunnels do not provide a safe side track in the event of an accident, breakdown or a fire so the passengers may wait several hours in the cars until the tracks are cleared.  Such trains must be spaced at least two and a half minutes apart while comparable buses with radars and better traction tires could be 10 seconds apart and therefore could carry more passengers on a route. Typically LRT speeds are about half those of a BRT system and a peak load for rail is also about half (25,000 ppdph) that for buses (50,000 ppdph).

· Ottawa’s proposed LRT will require a new fleet of expensive but quaint trains which are of concern for some officials and the Federal Government.  This and the expensive tracks and associated overhead power system and a new rail garage and also 12 refurbished stations will add half a billion dollars for the first stage of this transit system.  However the proposed BRT plan which could use the city’s new hybrid buses and the new as well as the older garages.  Each of the next stages of the proposed LRT system will also waste another half billion or so of tax payer’s precious money and increase the congestion and accidents on many streets.  The city’s proposed LRT system does not work well with the present Ottawa and STO BRT systems and compromises the city’s resources. The city should explore the proposed plug-in electric or hybrid BRT and tunnel system this summer to compare with the LRT system and then optimize the downtown transitways and associated vehicles with a view to costs (taxes and fares) and commute time and transfer hassles.  This study should be available to the public by early fall so that more informed discussions can be made on the optimum transit system.  It is important that the citizens and council have a sound understanding about the two proposed transit systems.

· A supplemental environmental assessment could be done on the BRT proposal this summer so that a fair comparison can be made of the different systems.  The vehicle capital and operating costs and amount of greenhouse gas production should also be compared for the two proposals.  The pros and cons of each system should then be discussed by an independent transit expert in the evaluation of the two systems.  Such an evaluation is important for optimizing both systems and could be of considerable benefit to council, the taxpayers and the senior levels of government who will be providing much of the funding.  It could probably save hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money as well as considerable commuting time, fees and taxes for many riders and rate payers for many years.  It also provides better business opportunities along the subway and transit routes than the deep LRT proposal.  This study would provide an objective measure of the quality of service and commuting time of the two different proposals.

· Council should fully debate the two options and also the NCC Interprovincial Transit Study this summer so that a sound tentative decision can be made in late summer.  The city and council could then review the options for the optimum system and tweak it up for further consideration and support in late 2012.  The first stage of the BRT tunnel system under Queen Street from Bronson to Elgin is straight forward and construction might begin in the spring of 2013 for either the cut and cover system or possibly with the new Komatsu rectangular tunnelling system.

· Ottawa’s proposed initial phase of the LRT system and associated tunnels are a $2.1 billion cost for the city and certainly does not improve service but sets a bad trend for the next few decades.  Quick charge battery buses or fuel cell buses are the way of a low carbon and frugal future.  It is strongly suggested that the city have bids from both BRT and LRT vendors so that the city and international transit experts can review the different options and then grade them for public discussion this fall.  The options and costs for the different systems and an intercity management of the capital transit should be available for discussions and town hall meetings in Ottawa and Gatineau this fall. The best price will result from proposals from both bus and train vendors.

· If Ottawa does adopt the LRT system then it should go under Albert and the canal and then under Daly so that it does not interfere with the Confederation Subway system. It should also be built after the Confederation BRT Subway.

· The proposed system of BRT subways in the downtown core, new double decked Alexandra and Chaudière bridges and some new tunnels under the Ottawa River provides better opportunities than the LRT plan for improved speedy links for both vehicles and buses between Ottawa and Gatineau.  In view of all these facts and the uncertain economic and environmental future it is strongly suggested that the city also investigate the BRT Subway/Transitways forthwith for a plan B as several councillors and many taxpayers are now looking for affordable, efficient and green transit.  The Mayor and council will get just as much credit for a modest BRT system as for an expensive tax laden LRT which hinders operations for years. It is also strongly recommended that the Ontario and Quebec governments explore the possibility of a National Capital Transit Commission much like Vancouver’s TransLink system which integrates the transit and main traffic systems for 21 municipalities.  This transit/traffic system is over seen by the mayor’s council, a board of directors and a commissioner.  It has a good operating, environmental and sustainability record. The National Capital Transit Commission should have a similar council, board and commissioner.

Economic, Environment and Political Challenges

The forthcoming climate, oil and demographic crisis will see an increase in the use of public transit as the cost of fuel and carbon taxes escalate (see transportation section in ‘Mitigating Power, Oil and Climate Disasters’ at http://pages.istar.ca/~jwalker ).  Canada should endeavour to cut its high GHG emissions by ~20% by 2020 and by ~70% by 2050 to meet the international standards.  Recent studies indicate mankind is slated for a few centuries of very warm and wacky (expensive) weather unless there are drastic reductions in GHG. 

The poorly regulated US and EU financial systems triggered a global recession and disaster that will last for several more years.  The U.S. government now has a debt of ~$15 trillion dollars which is increasing.  It might take a decade or so for the U. S., Japan, the U.K. and the EU to move out of their deficits.  These weak economies will drag down the Canadian economy for several years as we export 70% of our goods to the U.S.  Hence the Canadian economy will probably follow the recovery of the US and EU economies.  The Federal government had a recent deficit of ~$28 billion and a debt of $550 billion and it will have a debt of $600+ billion by the time it has a balanced budget.  The Ontario government’s debt is ~$230 billion and the deficit is over $15 billion and it will have a debt of $270+ billion by the time it is free of deficits.  The combined Federal and provincial debts are now about a trillion and comparable to our GDP.  Ontario has wisely put on hold any further expansion of the GTA transit system and the TTC is in a bind because of Mayor Ford’s and Metrolinx’s fixation on expensive rail subways and because of its costs and debt.  It is suggested that Ontario consider a GHG tax similar to that of B.C. but strictly for the GTHA to cover most of the new transit costs.  The Federal government hopes to reduce its deficit by frugal management and the Ontario government will be doing the same so they can both eventually attack their whopping debts. Hence more resources for transit from either government will probably be limited for a decade or so.

The Ottawa-Gatineau economy could lose almost 15,000 government jobs over the next three years as the new budget spending restraints cast a pall over the region.  Generation X is now retiring and that will further limit resources for all three levels of government.  Consequently council should not expect much more support in the next decade from these senior levels of government.  Hence the cities, the provincial and the federal governments must all be prudent, frugal and wise for the next decade to keep our economy rolling and keep lowering deficits and eventually debts without raising taxes significantly.  They should certainly not waste any of the tax payer’s precious money on unnecessary or extravagant projects.  Some councillors and many tax payers are wisely looking for an affordable transit upgrade.

The Zussman report on Ottawa municipal governance failed to recognize the main causes of friction in council and that is the imbalance of representation between the core and suburbs and also the lack of community and committee accountability.  This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the lopsided LRT transit plan.  The city should be divided into six districts with six standing community councils of four or so councillors next spring (2013) for the following election.  This requires an additional councillor in the suburbs and realignment of some wards.  This system will engage the councillors and citizens in each community/district much more effectively than the present system and thereby significantly improve accountability and governance as recently suggested by some councillors. However, they should still work together in the regular standing committees to optimize the common services. The chairs of the standing committees should be elected and not anointed by the mayor. The citizens should have the opportunity at the election in 2014 to vote on this governance system.  It is also of concern that the mayor and some councillors are seemingly fixated on LRT.  The city really needs to have a lobbyist registry to ensure citizens have a glimpse of what’s going on in City Hall.

The city’s present~$950 million debt and payments of $90 million a year do not indicate prudent fiscal management.  The city also has a tarnished reputation handling large contracts.  Consequently all options should be considered, including firm support from the senior governments which are now both in difficult financial situations.  The city’s new council under Watson have wisely limited the budget increase to 2.5% and has reduced the present bus system somewhat.  The city should first optimize its present transit system before implementing a costly and possibly dysfunctional light rail system on the main transit way.  Optimizing a transit system requires the consideration of capital and operating costs, fares including taxes, travel time including transfers, congested traffic regions, vehicle types, capabilities and features including GHG emissions.  It is also suggested that council consider a pay-as-you-go per stage system unless significant upper level resources have been fully secured.  Unfortunately the proposed LRT first stage is a one shot deal and cannot be done in several steps and the next stages are equally expensive and have limited merit.

Public transit substantially reduces congestion, fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, making it a wise public investment in a new, carbon-constrained economy.  A typical bus at its capacity of 70 (seated and standing) can save at least 50 cars on the road.  The associated fuel savings yield commensurate cuts in CO2 emissions.  A passenger car carrying one person emits ~89 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles, while a full bus emits only 14 pounds per passenger for the same trip and an electric bus would be only a few kilograms in Ontario and even less in Quebec.  In addition, these benefits of conventional transit buses are further enhanced by a growing number of alternative options known as “green buses,” including electric hybrid, fuel cell electric, quick charge battery electric, and other advanced technologies.

The city’s expensive $6.6 billion light rail transit (LRT) plan is ill suited for Ottawa which has good bus service with several rapid transitways.  It would probably saddle the city with eventually a 2+ billion dollar debt and an inefficient core transit system as most riders will have to transfer on and off the rail service which takes at least 5 min. and another 5 min. to ascend/descend 2 long escalators.  The plan also does not have any routes into any of the three distant suburban communities which is the main advantage of LRT.  This discrepancy in the plan probably stems from the imbalanced council.  The LRT first stage is now ~$2.1 billion and perhaps half a billion dollars more than a comparable expanded bus rapid transit (BRT) with subways and note the Federal government’s infrastructure program does not support the acquisition of trains.  However, it now supports some research into hybrid and electric vehicle research and technology.  The McGuinty government indicated the plan is too expensive and has provided only $600 million so the city should scale back the plans or provide additional funding for the first stage.  The Federal government has contributed a similar amount.  The city would undoubtedly need to increase the transit rate on the property tax and also the rider fees significantly more for this LRT option which was not mentioned in the citizen poll that the city uses to justify LRT.

The LRT plan does not really solve the bus congestion problems on Albert and Slater streets but puts only 50% of it underground as the local buses cannot go in the rail tunnels.  Furthermore it would increase transit times by about 20 minutes on the main transitway as most users during peak conditions must connect/wait for the train/bus at each end of the rail line and also ascend/descend two levels of stairs or escalators at the deep downtown stations.  This delay in commute time and the increased fares would cause considerable irritation to perhaps a hundred thousand passengers every day and consequently would not gain much support from the public.  Such transfers, delays and increased fares significantly reduce ridership.  Hence this plan could become a white elephant and consequently it is strongly recommended that the city should at least explore an expanded BRT system with subways and carefully compare it with their proposed LRT system.

Note the steel wheels of rail vehicles on steel tracks result in a low coefficient of friction and the trains will need to be spaced several times (>2.5 min.) the distance of rubber wheeled buses (~10 sec), especially when wet or snow covered, for safety considerations.  Hence rail systems are less safe than buses and their capacity for moving people is less than a comparable BRT.  The recent light rail accidents in Washington, San Francisco and Toronto and the tie-up of 5 trains in the Chunnel for 18 hours and loss of service for four days and the recent Brussels LRT collision are of some concern and interest.  The LRT proposal will eventually have steel tracks on roads which are a hazard to cars and particularly to motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles.  The overhead power lines for the trains and the tracks are also an eyesore and dangerous.  They also significantly increase the congestion as they cannot share a lane like buses can.  The quaint single axle bogies squeal when rounding a corner and they are noisy and cumbersome on the street.  The city should realize that the proposed LRT does not have any advantages (See A. Haydon’s study and also see the BRT vs LRT site and the US National BRT site) but numerous disadvantages for Ottawa.  BRT systems can move about twice ~50,000pph as LRT ~25,000pph and at about 35% of the operating cost of LRT. It will probably double the city’s debt and put other significant projects in limbo for a decade or more.

Note the Ottawa property taxpayer is already paying about $565 each year for the bus service that is used by only 30% of the residents.  The taxpayer does not subsidize hydropower users or for the potable, waste and storm water services.  Only low income riders should be subsidized.  Some BRT transit systems have become self sufficient and Ottawa should strive to do better.  Hence the fares should gradually be increased from the present 50% to at least 60% of the operating cost of the different transit services and possibly more in succeeding years to be fair to these taxpayers.  The TTC fees cover about 70% of the operating costs.  The O-Train service could in theory be extended to Gatineau over the Prince of Wales Bridge.  However, it would cost $40 million to refurbish this single track bridge which is prohibitive.  Fair charge for the present service would probably reduce the use of this expensive rail system which could eventually be replaced with a less expensive and better BRT system.  Fares for the proposed LRT service itself will probably have to be double the current BRT fares.  Also note the bus transitways and some bus stops should be available to private operators with suitable buses for a token fee to provide better service to some remote non-serviced communities and some relief to the taxpayer.  There are now 60,000 people who cross the Ottawa River every day and they would appreciate a more efficient intercity transit system.  In view of some strategic errors it is strongly suggest for the present that a transit specialist from the NCC sit on both the STO Board of Directors and Ottawa’s Transit Committee to ensure the two systems can operate efficiently on the others’ routes, transitways and subways and thereby maintain a speedy intercity service.

The cost of using the transit system during peak periods could be enhanced by about 20% to discourage such use and save resources.  The peak hours could be from say 8-9:30 A.M. and from 4 to 5:30 P.M.  Evening and weekend use could be reduced by 20 % to encourage use during slack periods.  Hence student, adult and senior, monthly and seasonal passes should not be encouraged as they do not optimize use of the system.  The new presto card could accommodate such variables.  All of the rider information should be used to develop smart routes that take most of the riders to and from their destinations in the region at the right time and with a minimum amount of time and cost and with as few transfers as possible.  Riders on thin routes should be encouraged to cooperate with their neighbours, the transit authority and others on the route to establish an optimum route and common times to optimize the (smart) service.  This method should also be used for those who commute to Gatineau so that the number of transfers can be minimized.  The smart system could also be used to assist secondary students commuting to high schools as it is expensive for school boards to invest in clean school busses which are only used for a few hours a day and only on school days.  All city buses should be outfitted with GPS NextBus data technology, allowing transit riders to track buses online and on their cell phone, so they can be at a stop just in time rather than waiting outside in the rain and cold often for tens of minutes.

Green Vehicles

The carbon tax may soon be ~$30 per tonne of greenhouse gases (GHG) so all vehicles should be as efficient and clean as possible.  The cost of carbon fiber has recently come down and it could be used for vehicle production and provide a weight reduction of about ~25%.  This in turn can improve fuel efficiency by perhaps15%.

A Dutch company has recently developed and tested powered bus wheels with a built in electric motor in the hub which is more efficient than using a single motor with a differential.  This technology could be expanded to a four wheel drive system for heavy and articulated buses and thereby provide better traction and control of the bus during the often wet and icy conditions in Ottawa in the winter.  Note such electric buses with batteries and/or the new ultra capacitor power units are relatively clean and quiet and do not require expensive overhead trolley lines or of course expensive rails and thereby save millions of capital dollars and repair costs.  Only 10% of the hydropower in Ontario is now from fossil fuels. However a new 1250 MW link from Hydro Quebec and one from Manitoba and the completion of the big tunnel around Niagara Falls and many FIT projects and further astute management by OPG may soon reduce the fossil fuel content of Ontario’s power to a few percent.  The OPG thermal power plants are to be phased out in 2015.

EcoloCap have had some success with carbon nanotube lead acid batteries (CNT batteries) which can be charged in 5 – 10 minutes and are 8x the capacity of conventional lead acid batteries and 2.5 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.  However, new types of lithium batteries are also being developed and lithium–sulfur batteries can store ~630 Wh/kgm and are more powerful.

A Chinese and an American partner have had some success with plug-in buses using small ultra capacitors in Shanghai.  Electrovaya have made 40 kWh 700 V Lithium ion SuperPolymer batteries that may eventually be quick charge capable and hence viable for transit buses.  At 10 cents a kilowatt-hour it will cost about $5 per full charge of the CNT battery as opposed to ~$20 for gas or diesel fuel for a similar 40 km trip.  Comparable savings are possible by using the CNT batteries in a plug-in hybrid bus.  However, these batteries can be expensive and savings of 20% might be possible by combing a fast charge battery or ultra capacitor with a less expensive sodium battery.

A few parkades for vehicles should be implemented near major bus terminals, possibly with PPP operations, to alleviate the limited curb parking in the downtown core and along transit ways.  An underground parkade should also be explored for Confederation Park to support the festivals, NAC and nearby hotels as well as the new Convention Centre.  The new electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles generally have a range of only 20 - 100 km or so.  Hence the parkades should have numerous 120 V and 240 V plugs to recharge electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and electric scooters.  Vancouver has a new regulation that requires 20% of any new parking facility to have plug-ins.  New parking meters should also have 120 V plugs which shut down when the time/money has expired.  Car pooling with plug-in electric or plug-in hybrids cars may soon be an inexpensive way to commute to the downtown office or for shopping.

Some scooters, keen cyclists, mopeds and e-bikes now travel at ~35 km/hr and they can readily commute 40 or more kilometres.  They should be on separate bikeways with as few stops as possible and much like those in the Netherlands and Denmark.  If they are on the shoulder of a busy road then they might be “protected” with a rumble strip or posts as well as a white line.  These express bikeways could be ploughed into November until there is a major snow fall and also in late March during the first warming spell.  The proposal for an east-west segregated bike route on Somerset Street and O’Conner are commendable but the city should first establish a few nearby parking facilities (PPP?) along the street where parking is removed for the bikeway.  The outside lane for bikeways might be separated into two bike lanes with a dashed line.  The curb lane could be for the slower Sunday cyclist and bladders and the inner lane for the fast cyclists, fast e-bikes and for scooters.

The old buses or light rail trains (LRT) are heavy and hence generally use more energy and cause more pollution per passenger kilometre than the average car.  However, a bus typically carries 5-20 times more passengers than a car and thereby eases congestion on the roads and parking in congested centres.  Light rail might eventually be clean, light and efficient but it is about three times the capital cost of bus rapid transit and is inflexible.  A Bombardier 3 unit LRT cost about $6 million, while a similar bi-articulated bus costs about $2 million.  Furthermore the operating costs for LRT systems are about three times that of BRT.  The proposed LRT system would also be completely inoperative during a power outage whereas a battery/fuel cell electric or plug-in hybrid BRT system would still function normally.

The buses that travel at high speed to the suburban communities should be streamlined to reduce the drag and hence improve their efficiency.  They should also be at least tapered in the front and rear so that they can readily manoeuvre in a tight subway.   Furthermore any new buses should have individual ventilation for each row of seats to reduce the spread of communicable diseases.  Air sanitizers are also becoming available for jets and they should be explored.  Cooper has been found to significantly shorten the life of microbes on its surface and hence all hand holds, doors and other surface on the bus and in terminals should be clad in cooper.  An efficient heat pump for electric vehicles could provide both cooling during summer and efficient heating during the winter for plug-in hybrid or electric buses.  The bus should also be equipped with an inexpensive ball-in-tube inclinometer which the driver can use to control the speed when on curves to minimize the lateral forces on the riders.  The curves should also be marked with the optimum speed measured with such special instruments.  The buses should also have airbags to protect the passengers in the event of a major collision and at least two doors per coach so they can load and unload quickly and for emergency use.

Ottawa’s buses should eventually all be clean battery electric which use quick charge CNT or lithium titanate batteries or ultra capacitors to supplement the working battery: see electric buses.  Hence they could be quickly recharged at any transitway station and the buses should be able to run most of the time on inexpensive and clean electricity and thereby save millions of dollars for diesel fuel and the associated pollution.  The new fleet of 177 hybrid buses the city has ordered should have space to install these new batteries or the ultra capacitors.  The CNT batteries or ultra capacitors should be available in 2012 and the city and the vendor (Daimler Bus) should acquire some for testing on their new hybrid buses.  A fully charged 50 kWh CNT battery or ultra capacitor should provide about a half hour range (~40 km) for the city’s new hybrid buses.  Two such units in a plug-in hybrid bus should provide enough clean electric power for about 90% of the time, depending on the route and load and the number of charging stations.  See the Sinautec and ISE links for details of ultra capacitors and hybrid buses.  The CNT batteries or ultra capacitors could be recharged at garages, major terminals and some selected stops thereby significantly reducing fossil fuel consumption and the associated pollution and costs.  They would also keep the subways clean which is important as it would be difficult to clean them of the soot, oil and odour from the diesel exhaust.  Proterra have recently developed light battery electric buses, the EcoRide BE35 and soon the EcoRide BE45, with fast charging (10 min) lithium titanate batteries which provide a range of 50 – 60 km loaded.  Such buses are much lighter than rail systems and therefore more efficient.  They would also reduce fuel cost by 90% (~$200,000 over lifetime) and emissions by ~90% when in the electric mode in Ontario.  Proterra have also developed the FastFill automatic connecting charger for these buses and each unit can charge 6 buses per hour.

The charging stations need a hefty 3 phase charger of ~150 kW and should have an electrical storage capability so that they can rapidly recharge a vehicle in about 10 min.  However, the storage unit itself should be replenished slowly to avoid fluctuations on the power lines.  Solar cells have come down in price and have improved in efficiency and some triple junction cells are now about 40% efficiency.  Large tracking and concentrating solar panels made by Amonix can produce 50 kW of power.  They might be considered for terminals/stations with a large roof or nearby open field for an array of high voltage cells to supply some power for the charger.  Modest wind generators could also be considered for remote stops.  An overhead catenary system like that on the buses in Shanghai could be used to automatically recharge the CNT battery when the bus pulls into selected spots at a terminal.  A battery electric or plug-in hybrid bus with these devices is possibly 80% more efficient than a conventional diesel bus and hence this technology should be considered for any new buses.  When the city has numerous charging stations then some of the buses could be all electric and thereby save on the capital and maintenance costs.  Such a fleet can be just as clean as an electric LRT system but has the advantage of lower capital and maintenance costs and flexibility on all routes and capability of passing other vehicles on its route which a train does not have.  These buses could also go to some of the nearby (~30km) towns and thereby save on fuel and trip time.

Bi-articulated plug-in hybrid buses or battery electric buses should be considered for dense routes as the latter can carry more than 250 passengers and are comparable to a three unit light rail train.  Volvo and Vossloh Kiepe have some bi-and tri-articulated buses and also Neoplan and plug-in hybrid ones should be available in a few years.  Double decked bi-articulated electric or plug-in buses should also be available in a few years and should be able to carry 300 or more passengers.  These buses would probably require a 150 kWh battery so the charger should be about 300 kW or have a large storage capability.  A hundred or so of these busses would undoubtedly help reduce the congestion to and from the suburban communities and in the downtown region.  Such buses every 30 seconds or so could deliver 30,000 riders per hour from each transitway to and from the downtown core.  Vehicle radars are now available and it should be possible to have a bus travelling at high speed every 100 m, if necessary, on the transitways.  It is urgent that such buses service the Orleans and Kanata regions soon as the congestion on the buses and highways is unacceptable.  However, these routes are long and the commute time is often an hour or more so the new buses for these routes should have as many seats as possible.  Plug-in hybrid and electric buses are quiet and free of vibration so the drivers should endeavour to make the ride as smooth as possible so riders can read or work.  The roads should also be smooth and the buses should have good efficient tires for economy and for safety considerations.

The proposed battery electric BRT system will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emission much more than the LRT proposal.  The electric LRT only reduce the bus traffic on Albert and Slater streets by 50% and only goes from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road and thereby saves only 94,000 tonnes of GHG annually.  However, the proposed BRT moves all of the Albert St. and Slater St. bus traffic into one 4 lane tunnel under Queen St. and thereby saving about 125,000 tonnes of GHG a year.  Furthermore these buses only spend about a third of the time on this route and they can readily travel to the three suburban communities and hence save about 380,000 tonnes while a Diesel bus would initially have to complete the journeys for the LRT system.  Hence, the use of battery electric buses instead of rail vehicles provides about four times the reduction of GHG and a comparable saving in fuel costs.  The LRT will reduce the fuel consumption by 10 million litres a year but the green BRT proposal will reduce the fuel consumption by about 100 million litres per year.  The next step could be the Dalhousie-St. Patrick Subway and with a new double-decker Alexandra Bridge route to Gatineau to form the “Confederation Subway”. This system would require about a dozen each of OC Transpo and STO buses and save about another 20,000 tonnes of GHG.  Such a fleet of clean buses and numerous chargers would save about $80 million a year on fuel costs.

Transitways

There isn’t much space left in the downtown core for more high offices and we are probably in the first phase of a slow growth period and Nortel has failed so the estimate of 296,000 morning trips in 2031 may be high.  However it could be readily managed with numerous bi-articulated plug-in hybrid or battery electric buses, a few more transitways and some subways in the downtown core.  Buses on a transitway can slip off the route and service several adjacent communities in the core and in the suburbs along the route and then use the transitway for a rapid return to the centre of the city.  The stations on a transitway should be 4 lanes wide so that an express bus can slip by any loading/unloading bus.  LRT cannot go about a community or a suburb and pick up or drop off passengers and hence is not nearly as convenient or as efficient for the commuter as a bus and transitways.  The STO in Gatineau are implementing a transitway and its best that Ottawa expand its present excellent transitways rather than develop a light rail system that significantly disrupts this efficient and effective bus system which is one of the best in North America.

Curitiba in Brazil, with a population of 2.2 million, has a very nice and efficient BRT and feeder system and good supporting private bus lines that use the public facilities.  Bogotá, Columbia have recently replaced 7000 private buses with seven Bus Rapid Transit lines and numerous contracts which handle 1.6 million trips a day and this reduced fuel consumption by 59%.  Some lines move 45000 riders per hour per direction and twice that of LRT systems. Brisbane also has an efficient Bus Rapid Transit system which has been updated with exclusive bus right of ways.  The new Health BRT line in Cleveland, the Orange BRT line in Los Angeles and BRT extensions of LRT systems in Mexico, Calgary, Mississauga, Las Vegas, Eugene, Delhi (16 transitways) and in Beijing are the method of choice now for new rapid transit systems.  These and other BRT systems should be studied by the planners.

Unfortunately, there are several single minded light rail lobby groups and even some media and also some outspoken individuals who are seemingly obsessed with this expensive form of public transit.  They obviously have little regard for the poor taxpayer and the extra hassle and costs for the many commuters.  It is best that the city develop and review both the BRT and LRT options to have a more informed opinion on the costs and merits of each system before any decision is made.  An independent authority on transit should then analyse the two options and then comment on the pros and cons of each system and also provide an objective overall assessment.  This study and review should be available for the public to peruse by late summer so that more informed town hall discussions on the best system can be made.

Because LRT is much more expensive than BRT and is inflexible it is best used for connecting very high density locations some distance apart on existing tracks or right of way if at all possible.  However, the Superbus, which is being developed in the Netherlands, is more efficient and better for high speed transit than LRT for most new routes.  Ottawa, at present, does not have even two high density locations and only a few rail lines to some suburbs and rural communities.  The proposed expensive light rail system with the deep tunnel and the 12 updated and some new stations from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Rd. would significantly increase the commute time and cost and hence frustration for all passengers travelling to the downtown sector.  Such frustration would decrease the ridership by perhaps 20% or more.  Furthermore it would still require a bus transitway through the downtown core for the local buses within the Greenbelt as these buses cannot travel on the rail system.

The extra bus transitway for local vehicles should probably be on top of the proposed light rail tunnel and on the old transitways where possible.  Hence there would still be numerous local buses on the old transitways of Albert and Slater streets.  Consequently the LRT only reduces the downtown noise, congestion and pollution problems of buses.  It also cannot provide a fast service because of the many stops and curves in the proposed plan.  Furthermore, it does not connect with the O-train line.  It also does not provide service to the south side of the Rideau Centre and to the new Ottawa Convention Centre which is of considerable concern to the proprietors and the businesses in these centres.  It is an expensive misguided idea based on old and awkward technology which would significantly degrade the service for the commuters and for downtown business and would be a very large financial burden for the riders and the taxpayer.  Incidentally, most of these light rail stations should have a large parking lot or parkades as many of the core commuters will probably have to drive or cycle to the proposed light rail stations to save time commuting.

Note the Chaudière Falls mark a fracture and the region is in an earthquake zone so any deep tunnels should be resilient to large tremors.  The liability of running the LRT line under numerous tall buildings could be significant in the event of an earthquake.  The transit control lights for the tunnel should be connected to the local seismic network at the Seismic Observatory on Carling Ave. as well as smoke, fire and intrusion detectors throughout the tunnel.  The deep tunnels for the LRT will probably have water infiltration as the concrete ages which may cause problems.  The region also has pockets of leda clay and sand and these sections would require piles to the bed rock.  Travelling in a deep confined tunnel is not pleasant and the walls should be some distance from the coaches and with good lighting to provide a more pleasant ambience.  The subways should also have good ventilation for hybrid vehicles to recharge their batteries. A tracking solar light collector with fibre light pipes and overhead skylights should be used were possible.  The present transit security force might be supplemented by bus radars, smart passes, fences, monitoring systems and, when necessary, the city’s police service to reduce costs and conflicts.

Ottawa has several good transitways and the system should first be expanded and improved with good quiet, efficient and comfortable battery electric or plug-in hybrid buses and subways in congested regions.  However, more curb transitways might be established on Carling, Elgin, Bronson, Rideau, Montreal Road and other wide arterial roads.  It is somewhat disconcerting when in a small car to have big busses pass on the parkway.  The present sunken transitway along Scott might be extended via a shallow (~1 m) sunken road alongside the parkway or swing over beside Byron with short tunnels at intersections and to the Lincoln Heights transit terminal.  This route would be more accessible for riders living near Richmond St. and to shoppers headed for the Carlingwood Mall.  Such transitways should generally be just below the average terrain so that passengers can see the pleasant parkway and where they are going.  This sunken transitway would also reduce the noise and pollution for nearby communities.  The buses on the transitways should also have right-of-way at most intersections which will reduce the commute time by 10-20 minutes depending on the route and traffic.

The city should explore the development of smart buses that have a communications capability so they can be diverted to pick up or drop off riders near a route during slack periods.  This could be especially useful for the handicapped and for women at night as it would provide them with more security.

The National Capital Commission is developing an Interprovincial Transit Strategy and this study should be completed in spring 2012.  Any proposed enhancement to STO or OC Transit systems that will have Federal support should fit in with these concepts and support for improved commuting between the cities.  In particular it is desirable to limit the bus traffic on congested Wellington and Rideau streets so that visitors, tour buses and others can readily traverse this import part of the city.  A light rail inner core loop would be extraordinarily expensive and dysfunctional and would increase the congestion in the downtown sector which both cities are trying to reduce with expensive bus transit systems and subways in the core region.  An improved and smart BRT in each city could readily accommodate the buses from either municipality with core subways and loops anchored by double layer bridges in the east and west.  Some of the present bridges need to be replaced and some additional bridges or tunnels are needed for more loops across the Ottawa River. The inner loop could be the “Confederation BRT Subway”. Hence the riders would not waste time transferring to other buses or rail which would save them time and money.  However, tourist routes with stops for buses and cars at vantage scenic points for pictures and by the museums and other points of interest would be welcomed by many visitors.

The use of 2 lanes in the subways for each direction permits the buses to use the faster skip and stop technique to reduce the travel time in crowded sections as has been found in Portland and in Minneapolis.  This change and the use of clean and quiet bi-articulated electric or plug-in hybrid buses on the heavy routes would relieve the congestion, noise and pollution in the downtown region for a many years. 

Subway Options

The subways will be in use for a hundred years or more and should be designed to accommodate considerable traffic and different types of busses and double-decker vehicles.  Furthermore the road bed should have gradients of less than 4% so that it could readily be converted for articulated light rail vehicles if they should eventually prove to be more efficient and effective than comparable battery electric or plug-in hybrid articulated buses.  The first tunnel should be four lanes wide and ~5.2 m high and of either the cut and cover type or made with the new rectangular boring machines.  A four lane subway permits the use of the skip and stop technique which has proven to speed up buses travelling on congested streets.  It should be somewhat like the cut and cover tunnels for the Metros in Montreal and Washington.  Montreal has done a marvellous job of integrating the Metro stations with numerous underground shopping malls.  Toronto also has excellent underground shopping malls integrated with their subways and linked together with PATH.  Ottawa should endeavour to do the same but their proposed LRT is too deep for these scenarios.

The Swiss railway has just completed a 57 km tunnel at a cost of $9 billion or ~160 million per kilometre.  The TTC in Toronto find it costs about $300 million per kilometre for subways.  They are having problems with loads on their Young St. subway and should probably change it to a trolleybus system to double its capability. Komatsu have developed machines that can bore rectangular tunnels up to 6.2 m X 4.3 m which might be suitable for a two lane tunnel or one lane and a wide platform.  However, it is too low for a double-decker vehicle.  The limestone rock in the core region is readily broken up with large excavators and they are probably more efficient than boring machines.  Furthermore much of the underground infrastructure must be relocated before tunnelling and this can be done more efficiently with the cut and cover method.

There should probably be either a ramp over the proposed extension of the Pont du Portage road to Bronson and then over Wellington St. or a tunnel to the entrance of the Queen St. subway at the west side of the cliff.  The subway should be four lanes wide and with a platform all the way to Elgin. However, the east end of the Queen Street tunnel should be two lanes wide and go under Elgin and then with a lift bridge over the canal to the railway route under the bridge.  The lift bridge would only be used at night when there is little traffic on the transit way. An alternative is to line the canal with concrete and then have a tunnel just skim under the canal to Rideau so it’s not so deep. It should then go along Rideau with four lanes and a station near the Rideau Centre then to Dalhousie and then turn up and move over to Waller with two lanes. There should be ramps on both sides of the subway to the surface on Rideau St. so that OC Transpo buses could go along Montreal Rd. and STO buses could turn up to King Edward and go to/from Gatineau. The Rideau subway should eventually extend eastward under Rideau to Montreal Rd and then with transit lanes to Orleans for a second transitway. The main tunnel should then follow the old transitway but go under Laurier and then surface near the Campus station and be four lanes wide where possible.

It is expected that the subway will be at capacity shortly after it is finished so it is probably best that a wide four lane tunnel be constructed in the Queen St section.  This wide tunnel should increase the capacity by about 30% and also reduce travel time.  The buses should readily move between the inside lane and outside lane.  The excavation could be started at the ramp on the west end of Queen St.  This subway could be constructed in three stages with curb ramps to the surface route: from Bronson to Elgin; Elgin then around Rideau to Campus and then to Hurdman and then St. Laurent somewhat later when resources are available.

The subways are probably best made with cut and cover techniques and lined with precast blocks and roofs much like those used to make some interchanges.  The precast reinforced blocks could be designed to just fit the walls (~5.5 m high) and the roof sections could just fit the width of the span of the tunnel (~18 m wide) with one support in the middle of the span.  However, all three options for the tunnel should be explored to determine the most cost effective and attractive solution.

The underground utilities would need to be relocated and probably updated before the excavation operation which could be expensive ($100+ m) as the communication utilities generally charge 100% for this service.  However, with cooperation these lines could be rerouted during construction and then located in the upper corners of the subway and thereby be much more accessible than in the ground.  Consequently there should be no charge for such support and cooperation.  However, at least two local contractors, Greenbelt Construction and Taggart Construction, are both very adept at working in the region’s rocky terrain and around such lines and pipes if a utility fails to cooperate.  The city could then lease space in the subway if the utility later wanted to use it for its lines or pipes.

The outside lanes should be used for the various stops with ~3 m wide platforms with moving sidewalks, escalators and stairs to the sidewalks above.  The platform should continue for most of the length of the subway so passengers can readily switch from one route to another without having to go above to the street level.  The moving sidewalks would speed up the transfer of passengers.  Some elevators, stairs and escalators should be available at each intersection and the subway should be bright and attractive as they will be used for many decades.  The inside lane should be used by the buses for traveling much the same as at present on the Albert and Slater Streets.  The outside lane could also be used for deceleration and acceleration of the buses to their stations and for emergency stops so other buses could continue to function efficiently on the transitway.  The stops should have two bays and approach lanes and acceleration lanes so that a bus can stop at different but adjacent bays and can leave immediately once it is loaded and recharged if necessary.  This system of skip and stop is faster than the shuttle method and accommodates slow loading and unloading buses which could tie up a single lane of buses or bus-trains.  There should be charging capabilities at most bus stops in the subway.  A high speed express bus could possibly save twenty minutes or so of commute time over light rail which has to stop at each station.  There should be at least two stops on Slater for the long express buses and three for shorter and local buses and each stop should have two bays.  The light rail system cannot accommodate a high speed express train on a single track system.  The four lane subways can also accommodate all types of battery electric buses, articulated plug-in hybrid buses and bi-articulated hybrid buses, plug-in electric buses, double decked buses and also Superbuses.  It is much more flexible and safer than a single lane or rail tunnel and emergency service vehicles could quickly slip in behind any disabled bus.

Note, the cut and cover subway can be done in sections of a few blocks as needed and as resources become available.  The 4 lane subway and the two platforms should be at least 18 m wide and 5.3 m high.  However, the Komatsu tunnelling machine is only 4.3 m high which would be tight for a double decked bus.  The first section could be from Bronson to Elgin.  Access to the subway can be made with a curb ramp on each side of the street.  The space under the platforms could also be used to run some of the utility lines.  These large subways could be made by several local contractors working on different blocks and thereby complete the job in a couple of years.  The big dig for the proposed LRT requires a large boring machine and mostly likely an outside contractor, workers and staff and will take until 2018+ for completion.

The proposed shallow rectangular subways are more inviting than the cities’ proposed deep round tunnels and are readily accessible from the street and thereby help to reduce commute time.  They are also more resilient to earthquakes.  Stores along the route could also provide access and have display windows at the platform level for shopping so that customers would not have to go above and outside in the sometimes challenging weather of the Ottawa region.  The proposed LRT system is far too deep and adjacent stores cannot provide such an opportunity to commuting customers.   The cut and cover tunnels could be constructed in “block by block stages” with precast sections for the rectangular sections that can be quickly installed so that it does not impede traffic for very long.  The precast reinforced water resistant concrete sections could be interlocked and held together with cables passing through each section.   The large sections could be made in nearby LeBreton Flats or at Bayview so that they could be readily transported to the Queen-Waller streets construction sites.  These sections should be made of NRC’s new durable and green concrete if at all possible to extend their life and also to help reduce GHG.  The first stage would probably cost about $700 million and might be completed and in operation in a few years.  The second stage with the lift bridge would cost about $500 million and the new fleet of ~200 hundred plug-in bi-articulated buses and chargers about $200+ million for a total of $1.5 billion which is a saving of about $600 million over the city’s latest LRT proposal.

The subway should probably have a charger on each platform/block or about 12 in the subway to top up the batteries if necessary.  These could charge about 75 buses per hour with the Proterra FastFill chargers.  There should also be numerous chargers at each of the park and ride stations at Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven and at other main stops and at the garages for a total of 100 or so chargers which might cost about $20 million.

Both Ottawa and Gatineau could benefit from this inner “Confederation Subway” loop connecting a new double layer Alexandra Bridge and eventually a new double layer Chaudière Bridge with transitways and subways linking to the new Queen St. Subway and to the Gatineau Subway and transitways.  The old Alexandra Bridge should be replaced with a nice 4 lane two layer bridge soon so that more traffic could move across the Ottawa River and in particular buses should be on the lower level.  On the Ottawa side this would require a short tunnel from the new Chaudière Bridge to the LeBreton station with a flag stop by the War Museum.  A second tunnel from the new Interprovincial Bridge and under St. Patrick to Dalhousie could have a stop on Sussex by the National Gallery and a curb ramp on St Patrick for buses connecting with the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge and the north eastern section of Ottawa.  The two lane tunnel would turn and continue under Dalhousie with another curb ramp on Murray for buses connecting with King Edward and the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge and north eastern section of Ottawa.  It would continue with a 4 lane station at the Byward Market and then on to Rideau with another station and then under Waller and Laurier to the Campus transitway.

The subway on Rideau should be extended to Montreal Road and then Orleans as resources become available and the stations should be 4 lane wide. These links and the Queen St subway to LeBreton Lincoln Heights Carling and Kanata north could form another cross town high speed transitway

The new and improved links permit riders in most any part of the east or west end of Ottawa to catch a smart bus that would rapidly take them along the Ottawa transitways and over either of the two bridges to the core of Gatineau without having to transfer.  Subways from the Chaudière Bridge in Gatineau could link up with Eddy-Du Portage- Maisonneuve across the downtown core and some connect with the new RAPIBUS transitway.  The eastern end of this transitway should have a station on Laurier at the Museum of Civilization and then connect up with the lower level of the Alexandra Interprovincial Bridge.  There could also be curb ramps to Boulevard des Allumettieres so buses on this route could access the Alexandra Bridge transitway.  Similarly riders in Gatineau could have smart buses pick them up in the eastern and eventually in the western part of Gatineau and using the RAPIBUS transitway and these new bridges to quickly take them into the downtown core of Ottawa using the Queen St. transitway/subway without having to transfer.  This system of subways and bridges forms a first stage for a Confederation BRT Subway system. A LRT could not make any of the sharp turns on these routes and it would be very expensive and awkward to make it swing into such places.

The new Interprovincial links would significantly improve the traffic, transit and bicycle links and improve the Confederation Ceremonial Route and consequently should have extra Federal support.  A new double-decked Alexandra Interprovincial Bridge should be a high priority for NCC and should have full support of the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau for the supporting subways and roads.  Hence there would be fewer buses on King Edward, Rideau and the downtown Wellington section in front of the Parliament buildings.  The STO buses should also be battery electric or plug-in hybrid buses so that they would not pollute the tunnels.  A few of the new OC Transpo plug-in hybrid buses could also use this subway system to provide an alternative route to Gatineau which would return over the Chaudière bridge and then back on the transitway at the LeBreton station.

The Queen St. subway will be near capacity in a few years after completion and a second main transitway should be considered.  By having the Barrhaven transitway extend over the new Standherd Bridge and linking up with the Southeast Transitway at South Keys it could form a loop.  The buses on this line when in the core of the city should be on a second transitway from Bayview to the LeBreton stations then to Slater and then to the Mackenzie King Bridge via a 2 lane subway under Elgin St.  When the Mackenzie King – Hurdman section of the subway is at capacity then the local buses should be diverted to the surface route of this transitway.  Some could also return via a subway under Elgin, the Queensway and O’Conner to Main and the Southeast Transitway at the Smyth station.  The underground sections of the Slater St. Tunnel should also be 4 lanes and of the triple bored rectangular type or the cut and cover type.  The Elgin section could eventually be a 4 lane subway to Catherine then 2 lanes under the Queensway to Metcalf and then to O’Conner.  This tunnel could then go to the northeast corner of Lansdowne Park and then under the canal to Mutchmor and then to Main and finally along Smyth to the Southeast Transitway to complete the loop.  A LRT cannot make a sharp turn at Slater and Elgin and would have to go deep and swing north under Queen to come out along Elgin and consequently would be more expensive and the city would soon have a ridiculous spaghetti system of tunnels in the core using such an awkward system.

A third subway under Albert and the canal to Daly might be explored in the future for buses to reduce the congestion on the other subways in the core region. 

A fourth subway under Laurier for local buses would complete the Ottawa BRT Subway system and might be considered in the future when Albert, Slater and Queen are near capacity.  Hence it should be possible to eventually have four 4 lane subways in the downtown core rather than the present two surface single lane routes or the proposed two deep single lane LRT tunnels.  Also note that these subways do not cross over each other but are all parallel and on adjacent streets in the downtown section so that commuters can readily move from one transitway route to another one with interconnecting pedestrian tunnels and moving sidewalks.  However, note the city’s proposed awkward LRT system swings north across some future routes and thereby cuts off the possibility of a future Rideau – Queen St. tunnel in the downtown core.

These subways will significantly reduce the bus traffic on the downtown core streets and improve the access to this region for visitors, shoppers, commuters and for cyclists.  They will also reduce the commute time while the proposed LRT only reduces bus traffic by 50% and it will significantly increase the commute time, costs and stress (transfers).  Similarly a cut and cover tunnel could be under Maisonneuve or Eddy in Gatineau to relieve the congestion on these streets.  The platforms and stairs for these two intercity “Confederation Subways” could be finished in red garnet much like Confederation Boulevard to indicate a link between the two cities.  This optimized system of transitways and subways should be able to efficiently handle the commuter traffic for several decades whereas the proposed awkward LRT will probably require higher fares and more subsidies just to survive.  It would also be at capacity shortly after completion. The buses could be diverted to the surface route if there are any repairs or emergency conditions in the tunnels which is not possible with a LRT system.  These large tunnels also provide a secure shelter for the nearby office workers and shoppers during a catastrophic failure of our security system such as that during the 9/11, Lockaby and the Air India tragedies.

The excavated material from the tunnel could be screened and the dirt used to construct a modest dam (~8 m) and dikes just below Remic Rapids to raise the water to that of Lac Deschênes.  The rocks could be used to protect the dam and dikes from water and wind erosion.  The dam could have a road on it to connect Parkdale with Scott in Gatineau.  Pipes could then be used to carry the water to new efficient turbines by the Chaudière dam and associated power stations.  The enhanced hydraulic pressure and extra generators would significantly increase the hydro power of the three generating facilities by about 50 MW during peak flows.  This extra power would be available for a couple of months during the spring runoff and it could also be stored and used for peak demand or emergency periods as the new reservoir could store enough water for several weeks at full power.  The hydro power could also be used to compliment several nearby intermittent wind and solar farm power systems. Locks could be installed in the Chaudière dam and the new Remic dam so that boats from Montreal and Kingston would then have direct access to the upper Ottawa River some 400 km to Lake Timiskaming.

Ottawa - Gatineau Transit and Vehicle Loops

It is important that Ottawa and Gatineau have a few more good bridges for commercial use, for commuters, shoppers and travellers and for transit links to assist the 60,000 people who cross the Ottawa River every day so that riders can move quickly and efficiently between the two cities.  This requires similar transit systems so that the vehicles can readily move on the other’s transitways and subways.  The STO have no plans to have a LRT system in Gatineau even though there are old tracks nearby.  The core streets in both cities are narrow and frequently congested and sometimes gridlocked during rush hour.  Consequently it does not seem possible or wise to have an expensive and somewhat inefficient and awkward surface LRT system to link the two cities.  Both cities presently have short bus routes in the other city that have proven effective in transferring riders to the core of the other city however they often require the riders to transfer to the other system.  These routes could be improved with transitways and subways where the streets are narrow and/or congested.  The STO in Gatineau are developing a new bus transitway, called RAPIDBUS, which may eventually have a subway across the core of Gatineau that could speed local riders downtown and across the core and also help those coming from Ottawa.  However, OC Transpo is considering only LRT for the downtown core transitway which would impede both the local transit system and the buses coming from Gatineau.

The inner core loop could consist of new Chaudière and Interprovincial (Alexandra) double-decker bridges with the lower deck reserved for the STO and OC Transpo BRT systems.  The Alexandra Bridge should be replaced first and then the Chaudière Bridge should eventually be replaced.  Both should be four lane double layer bridges with transit lanes, sidewalks and cycle lanes to be part of an inner core and intercity subway loop.  The subways on both sides of the Ottawa River could link up for an inner core “Confederation Subway” loop of the two downtown regions. This could be similar to the Confederation Boulevard and the cost of this subway might be shared with the two municipalities.

If Ottawa does adopt the LRT system then it should go under Albert and the canal and then under Daly so that it does not interfere with the Confederations Subway system.

The STO buses should also use battery electric or plug-in hybrid buses so that they would not pollute the tunnels.  The subways on both sides of the Ottawa River should link up for an inner core loop of the two downtown regions.  The subway linking Queen St. and Rideau St. should pass under the southern end of Confederation Square but over the canal if at all possible.

A second loop could be developed with a two lane road that could be put on the proposed dam at Remic Rapids.  This loop could be used by the STO buses to connect with the Tunney’s Pasture terminal and by the OC Transpo buses to connect with the RAPID bus transitway. 

The proposed Kettle Island bridges are a good way to link the eastern parts of Ottawa and Gatineau and transit curb lanes may help speed riders along their way.  However, the two cities could use a ring road and the east end link could be a route linking Highway 366 in Quebec across lower Duck Island to an interchange near Green Creek on Highway 174.  This readily links up with the Queensway to form the east end of a loop or bypass road.  A transitway curb lane could be on this bridge and linked to one along Montreal Rd. to Rideau to improve access along Montreal Rd. and for commuters to/from Gatineau via this Duck Island Bridge.  This curb transitway could eventually be extended to Orleans with a multilane road on St Joseph Blvd. to help relieve the congestion on the main transitway and on the 174 Highway.

Ottawa does not have a good link between the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge and the Queensway.  It is proposed that the city explore either a 4 lane cut and cover tunnel or a bored one under King Edward Ave. with curb ramps from about Clarence St. to about Templeton St.  The curb ramps should be adjacent to the outside lane if possible.  This would improve the link to Gatineau and also get most of the through vehicles off the surface route which passes right by the University of Ottawa and hence it also reduces congestion and associated pollution.

The west transitway at Island Park Drive could have ramps for the STO buses to reduce the commute time for riders from Aylmer to Tunney’s Pasture and Ottawa’s downtown core.  This would also help to reduce the congestion on the Champlain Bridge.  Similarly the RAPIDBUS route to Aylmer could have ramps for the OC Transpo buses from the west travelling over the Champlain Bridge that need to use this route to take Ottawa riders to the west side of Gatineau.

There could be initially be a 2 lane tunnel at the Lac Des Chênes narrows and Des Chênes rapids to improve access to western Ottawa and the 416 and 417 highways for those in western Gatineau and in Aylmer.  This also improves access for those in Nepean to the western Gatineau, Gatineau Park and to highways 148 and 5.

Kanata is now a significant city as is the nearby city of Aylmer but they do not have a readily accessible connecting road for travellers, commuters or for commerce.  A high bridge across the Ottawa River just west of Aylmer Island could alleviate this problem.  However, such a bridge would be expensive and a bit of an eye sore in the nice tranquil country side of the region.  The supports would probably be a hazard to the hundreds of sailors that use Lac Des Chênes for recreational and competitive sailing.  A 2 lane tunnel would probably be less expensive and could handle the traffic for several decades when it could be supplemented by another 2 lane tunnel.  The tunnel(s) could of course be used for a smart bus transit route linking the cities by both the STO and OC Transpo services.  The tunnel could start at say Chemin Latton in west Aylmer and cross to say the Maxwell Bridge Road then cross the March road and then to Old Carp Road which should link up with Terry Fox Drive.  This tunnel and a corresponding tunnel across Lower Duck Island and an interchange on Highway 174 in the east form an extended loop/ring road for the two cities.

Incidentally, there could also be a pipeline across Upper Duck Island to link the Pickard waste water plant with the Gatineau plant in order to divert the sewage from one to the other in the event of overflow or failure at either plant.  The potable water supplies in both cities should also be linked in the event of a catastrophic failure, fire or earthquake in either city.  A recent fire in Gatineau was not contained because of the limited water supply for the extra Ottawa fire equipment that came to help the Gatineau Fire Dept.

Optimizing Multilane Highways

The Queensway is congested and slow nearly every morning and evening in both directions.  Furthermore it is very difficult to add more lanes to the Queensway in the core of the city.  Hence a 417 bypass around the Capital Region is needed to relieve the congestion on the Queensway especially during such peak periods.  It could also improve the accessibility of core and remote communities in and around the region.  A first step for a bypass would be a 2 lane extension of the West Hunt Club road across the Greenbelt and around the northeast corner of Glen Cairn to Eagleson Road.  This would permit travellers and truckers to exit/join the Queensway at Eagleson and then to Hunt Club and then merge/exit onto the Queensway at the Walkley Road 417 interchange which would save time during the rush hour periods.  Together with the Lower Duck Island Gatineau link and the Aylmer link it would also form a basic ring road for the National Capital Region as well as a bypass for the Queensway.  However, the Hunt Club road is not a fast limited access highway.

The Provincial Government should provide for a multilane highway bypass around the Queensway.  This road could be from the new Hazeldean 407 interchange around the southwest part of Stittsville to Fallowfield Rd. then across the Rideau River to Leitrim Rd. and then to the 417 Anderson road and interchange #104.  The Anderson Rd. could then be extended around Blackburn Hamlet to link up with the Lower duck Island road at the Highway 174 interchange to form a ring road around most of the capital region.  It could also be extended around Mer Bleue to the Tenth Line Rd. in Orleans.  A short route from the Hazeldean 407 interchange around the west side of Stittsville to Fallowfield Rd and using the Standherd Drive and bridge and then Armstrong Rd. to Leitrim Rd. could provide a temporary bypass route.  This bypass could eventually be made into a limited access highway.  It would also provide rapid access to the MacDonald Cartier International Airport for those in the east and west of the city.  This option should be explored by the province and the city this summer.

The speed limits and vehicle types on multilane highways should be segregated and staggered for the different lanes to optimize the efficiency of highways and thereby reduce commute time and also save fuel and reduce GHG emissions.  The outside lane(s) should be for trucks and slow vehicles and could initially be at 90 km/h and in a few years lowered to ~80 km/h as trucks are not streamlined and hence are inefficient at high speeds.  The middle lane(s) should be at ~100 km/h for most vehicles.  However, the inside lane should be for multi (3+) occupancy vehicles and for green (2+) vehicles and could initially be at ~110 km/h and in a few years raised to 120 km/h.  A green vehicle should initially have a highway capability of ~4 l/100 km (0.8 l/passenger/100 km) which would then qualify it for a green license plate.  The segmented sections should be marked with solid white lines most of the way except when vehicles need to cross over to exit or move to the express lane.  However, efficient Superbuses could travel at say initially 150 km/hr on special express lane(s) with flashing yellow lights or on long stretches of open transitways and express lanes.  If super green buses and green minibuses become popular then special high speed inner lanes (150 – 200 km/h) could be implemented on long routes.  Special naturally heated Super-roads could also be made on hills, curves and where snow drifts occur on highways and transitways to melt the snow and ice for safe high speed travel during wet and icy conditions. This system of special lanes is less expensive and more versatile than special transit lanes beside highways or high speed rail.  It might be gradually implemented on the Queensway and the new 407 highway to Carleton Place on a trial bases and could significantly reduce the commute time for suburban commuters and those travelling to/from the surrounding towns and villages.

The provincial governments might impose a modest carbon tax on old vehicles that are being used excessively when new efficient cars and trucks should be used.  This tax could be implemented when the owner applies for a new license and could be calculated from the mileage for the last previous year and type of vehicle.  An initial fee of say $5 for each tonne of GHG over say 5 tonnes for cars and over 10 tonnes for light commercial vehicles and buses could be considered.  For heavy trucks it could be 5$ for each tonne of GHG over say 20 tonnes.  This would encourage the owners to consider buying new more efficient vehicles or to reduce the driving of the old vehicles. Private jets are extremely inefficient and a similar tax of 5$ a tonne of GHG should be imposed on the jet fuel for these planes.

The Superbus is being developed at TU Delft with the support of Connexxion in the Netherlands.  The bus is light, streamlined, attractive and powered by in-wheel electric motors supplied with energy from quick charge batteries or ultra capacitors and possibly some fuel cells for backup.  It can travel at 250 km/h on Supertracks and is quiet and comfortable.  It can also travel on the local roads, arterial roads, highways and transit ways and hence is very flexible.  Every passenger has a seat in a compartment.  Hence, it is more efficient, flexible and comfortable than the present system or any inflexible light rail system and would be ideal for segregated highways.  See Superbus for details of this sleek and efficient vehicle.