Optimizing Ottawa’s Core Rapid Transit System

Dr. J.K. Walker

88 Starwood Rd. Nepean, ON, K2G 1Z5

Economic, Environment and Political Challenges

The forthcoming climate and oil crisis will probably 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 ~25% by 2020 and by ~80% by 2050 to meet the international standards.  The poorly regulated US financial system has triggered a global recession and disaster that will last for several years.  The U.S. government now has a debt of ~$12 trillion dollars which is increasing and the American consumer has also lost about ~$12 trillion dollars in the melt down.  It will take a decade or so for the U. S., Japan, the U.K. and some other highly indebted countries to fully recover.  These factors will drag down the Canadian economy for several years as we export 75% of our goods to the U.S.  Hence the Canadian economy will follow the recovery of the US economy.  The Federal government now has a deficit of over $56 billion and a debt of $500 billion and the Ontario government’s debt is $175 billion and the deficit is over $25 billion. The Federal government hopes to reduce its deficit by frugal management and the Ontario government will have to do the same so they can both eventually attack their whooping debts.  Consequently council should not expect much more support in the next several years from these senior levels.  Hence the cities, the provincial and the federal governments must all be frugal and wise for the next decade or so to keep our economy rolling and keep lowering deficits and eventually debts without raising taxes. They should certainly not waste any of the tax payer’s precious money.

 The Zussman report on Ottawa governance failed to recognize the main causes of friction in council and that is the imbalance of representation between the core and suburbs and lack of community accountability.  This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the lopsided transit plan. The city should be divided into six districts with six standing community councils of four councillors this winter (2010).  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 than the present system and thereby significantly improve accountability and governance as recently suggested by some councillors.  Each district should gradually become a borough in a decade or so and should oversee and pay for most of its own services much like those in Toronto.  However, they should still work together in the regular standing committees to optimize the common services.  The citizens should have the opportunity at the election in 2010 to vote on this governance system as well as the proposed options for the core transit system.  It is important that the city and the boroughs optimize all their services to reduce energy (fossil fuels) requirements and the associated costs and greenhouse gases.

The city is a bit slow paying off its present~$860 million debt and the present 2010 budget does not include much debt repayment.  The city also has a tarnished reputation handling significant contracts.  Consequently all options should be considered, including firm support from the senior governments which are now both in difficult financial situations.  Hence, the city should first optimize its present transit system before implementing a costly and dysfunctional light rail system on the main transit way.  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 plan is a take it or leaves it one shot deal. The city’s planned expansion of the present bus system will already require a 2% increase in the property tax each year for the next decade.

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.  The plan also does not have any routes into any of the three suburban communities which is the main advantage of LRT. This discrepancy probably stems from the imbalanced council. The LRT first stage is now ~$2 billion and perhaps half a billion dollars more than a comparable expanded bus rapid transit (BRT) and note the Federal government’s infrastructure program does not support the acquisition of trains.  The McGuinty government indicated the plan is too expensive and have provided only $600 million so the city will have to scale back the plans or provide additional funding for the first stage. The Federal government might contribute a similar amount but also has reservations about the LRT proposal. 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.  This plan does not really solve the bus congestion problem on Albert and Slater streets but only puts some 30% 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 three 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 with tunnels and carefully compare it with their proposed LRT system.

The steel wheels of rail vehicles on steel tracks result in a low coefficient of friction and the trains will need to be spaced at least twice (>1 min.) the distance of rubber wheeled buses, 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 three 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 city should realize that the proposed LRT does not have any advantages (click on A. Haydon’s presentation and the BRT advantage site) but numerous disadvantages for Ottawa and that it will double the city’s debt and put other significant projects in limbo for a decade or so.

Note the Ottawa property taxpayer is already paying about $515 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 city’s cost of the different transit services and possibly more in succeeding years to be fair to these taxpayers.  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 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 BRT service.  The proposed LRT system is well known (U.S. studies) to be about twice as expensive as BRT for capital costs and three times more expensive for operating costs.  Fares for the proposed LRT service itself will probably have to be double the current BRT fares.  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.

Smart RFID bus cards should be explored to reduce loading time, improve passenger service and control and have a pay per distance travelled and vehicle type as well as intercity capability.  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 for establishing 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. 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 ~$50 per tonne of GHG so all vehicles should be as efficient and clean as possible. A new small electrical device introduced just before the fuel injection of an engine, which produces a strong electric field to reduce the fuel viscosity, results in much smaller fuel droplets for atomization.  Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion.  Both laboratory tests and road tests confirm this theory and indicate that such a device improves fuel mileage by 20% and some of these devices should be available in 2010.  It also reduces the smell and particulate pollution of diesels.

Transonic Combustion, a startup based in Camarillo, TX, has developed a fuel-injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by more than 50 percent. A test vehicle equipped with the technology gets 64 miles per gallon in highway driving, which is far better than more costly gas-electric hybrids, such as the Prius, which gets 48 miles per gallon on the highway. The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development. This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle. The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that "activates" it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion.

 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 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.  About 20% of the hydropower in Ontario derives from fossil fuels but a new 1250 MW link from Hydro Quebec this winter and astute management has reduce the fossil fuel content of Ontario’s power to about 15%.

Ferrous ion batteries are becoming available and they are more rugged and less expensive than the lithium ion batteries but most batteries cannot be charged quickly.  However, there is some success with carbon nanotube 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.

A Chinese and an American partner have had some success with buses using small ultra capacitors in Shanghai. EEstor in Texas, have developed large ultra capacitors, EESU (electrical energy storage units or ultra capacitors), which can store three times the power of comparable lithium-ion batters and can be charged quickly.  One of these units can hold 52 kilowatt-hours of electric power at 3500 V and are expected to cost about $6500, which is much less than comparable Li-ion batteries.  However, a comparable 50 kWh CNT battery is expected to cost about $1500. At 10 cents a kilowatt-hour it will cost about $5 per full charge of the CNT battery or the EESUs as opposed to ~$50 for gas or diesel fuel for a similar vehicle fill-up.  Comparable savings are possible by using the CNT batteries or the EESU in a plug-in hybrid bus.

It is suggested that parking be limited in the downtown core from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. so that the buses can readily move about on most streets.  However, a few parkades for vehicles should be implemented near bus terminals, possibly with PPP operations, to alleviate the limited curb parking in the downtown core and along transit ways.  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 some 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 110 V plugs which shut down when the time has expired. Car pooling with plug-in electric or plug-in hybrids cars will soon be the smart and inexpensive way to commute to the downtown office or for shopping.  Some scooters, keen cyclist, mopeds and e-bikes now travel at ~35 km/hr and they can readily commute 20 or more kilometres. They should be on separate pathways like those in the Netherlands where possible. If they are on the shoulder of a busy road then they might be “protected” with a rumble strip as well as a white line. These cycle paths could be ploughed into November until there is a major snow fall and also in late March during the first warming spell.

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 at least twice the capital cost of bus rapid transit and is inflexible.  A Bombardier 3 unit LRT cost about $5.5 million, while a similar bi-articulated bus costs about $1.5 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 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.  A half pyramid (bottom) box can be added to the rear of a bus which can improve the efficiency by at least 10% and should be explored.  NRC has a large wind tunnel that might be used to develop the best shape for this “bustle”.  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.  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 buses should have at least two doors per coach so they can load and unload quickly.

Ottawa’s buses should eventually all be plug-in clean diesel hybrids and/or electric and use quick charge CNT batteries or EEStor’s or other ultra capacitors to supplement the working battery.  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 the EEStor ultra capacitors should be available in the spring of 2010 and the city and the vendor (Daimler Bus) should acquire some for testing on their new hybrid buses.  The ultra capacitors store much of their energy at a high voltage so they need a step down transformer to charge it to the working battery voltage for the motor/generator so that it can still absorb most of the regenerative surge power from the generator while braking.  A fully charged 50 kWh CNT battery or EESU 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. They would reduce fuel cost by 90% and emissions by 80% when in the electric mode. The CNT batteries or ultra capacitors could be recharged at garages, major terminals and some remote stops thereby significantly reducing fossil fuel consumption and the associated pollution and costs.

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 15 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. 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 or the EESU when the bus pulls into selected spots at a terminal.  A plug-in hybrid bus with these devices is possibly 70% 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 a clean as an electric LRT system but has the advantage of lower cost and flexibility on all routes and capability of passing other vehicles on its route which a train does not have.

Bi-articulated plug-in hybrid 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 has some bi-articulated buses and also Neoplan and plug-in hybrid ones should be available in a few years.  These buses would probably require a 100 kWh battery or two EESU units 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, or so, on the transitways.  It is urgent that such buses service the Orleans region 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. Hybrid 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 tires for safety considerations. Such a fleet of clean buses would reduce the diesel fuel consumption by about 10 million litres a year and the related greenhouse gases by 27 million kilograms and save about $8 million on fuel costs.

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 wheel electric motors supplied with energy from batteries and probably ultra capacitors and possibly some fuel cells for backup.  It can travel at 250 km/hr 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.  Each of the seven compartments has a door for rapid loading and unloading of passengers.  The Superbus can be called up and could deviate from a regular route to pick up several passengers at a station or nearby intersection during off peak times.  Similarly, the passengers can give a destination and the bus will drop them off at a nearby intersection near the regular route during off peak travel.  Hence, it is more efficient, flexible and comfortable than the present system or any inflexible light rail system.  The Dutch are presently planning a system of north-south Supertracks to join the various towns, cities and airports in the Netherlands for this bus.  It should not be expensive to implement the Superbus into the present transitways in Ottawa.  Such buses are best used on the residential routes in the suburbs of Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans and Stittsville and on rural routes to the surrounding towns and rural park and ride lots as well as for servicing the Ottawa International Airport. They would also be good for smart bus routes that pickup passengers in one city that work in the other city and then reverse the routes for the return trips to provide a smart service.

See Superbus for details of this sleek and efficient vehicle.

N.B. the city’s new hybrid buses should be upgraded with CNTbatteries or ultra capacitor electrical storage units ASAP and numerous bus terminals equipped with hefty chargers so these buses can travel on inexpensive and clean electricity most of the time.  Articulated and bi-articulated plug-in hybrid buses should be available in a few years and a hundred or so should be acquired when available.  Such buses would be ideal for use in the new tunnels as they would not cause nearly as much pollution as the old buses and thereby make the task of keeping the tunnel clean with fresh air significantly easier.  They are also much less expensive than rail systems and much more flexible and versatile and fit in very well with the present transitways in Ottawa and Gatineau.

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 long recession 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 buses, a few more transitways and some tunnels in the downtown core.  Buses on a transitway can slip off the route and service several different 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.  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 perhaps 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%. Brisbane also has an efficient Bus Rapid Transit system which has been updated with exclusive 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 city, Calgary 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.  Bus transitways can carry just as many passengers as light rail systems. Generally light rail systems should not replace excellent transitways but be on separate routes and compliment the bus transit system.  The city’s proposed light rail system and downtown tunnels does not meet these important criteria and should not be considered until all the possible bus transitways with associated tunnels in the core are near capacity and independent LRT routes identified.  Unfortunately, there are several single minded light rail lobby groups and even some media and also some outspoken individuals and politicians 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.  The city must do a proper (professional) job and develop and review both the BRT and LRT options to have an 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 different pros and cons of each system and also provide an overall assessment.

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 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 12 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 the expanded 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 but 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 parkade 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 city is in an earthquake zone so the deep tunnels should be resilient to large tremors.  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 will probably have water infiltration as the concrete ages which will probably cause problems. Travelling in a deep 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 present transit security force might be supplemented by bus radars, smart passes, monitoring systems and, when necessary, the city’s police service to reduce costs.

Ottawa has several good transitways and the system should first be expanded and improved with good quiet, efficient and comfortable plug-in hybrid buses and tunnels 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 to the Lincoln Heights transit terminal.  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 NCC is developing an Interprovincial Transit Strategy and this study should be completed in the spring of 2010. Any proposed enhancement to STO or OC Transit systems that will have Federal support should fit in with these concepts for improved commuting between the cities. A light rail inner core loop would be extraordinarily expensive while an improved BRT system in each city could readily accommodate the buses from either municipality and use the existing bridges without the riders having to transfer.

To optimize the Albert and Slater transitways in the interim, they could be changed to two way streets in the spring (2010) so that bus transitways could be on both sides of each street.  This would double the present two routes or lanes across the downtown core to four routes.  This change and the use of clean and quiet bi-articulated plug-in hybrid buses on the heavy routes would relieve the congestion, noise and pollution in the downtown region for a few years.  This system would also help during the construction of the tunnel under Albert. Hence the congestion excuse used by many is week and should not be used to justify a rush to light rail at this time.

The first bus tunnel should be under Albert St. and be four lanes wide and of either the cut and cover type or made with a rectangular boring machine. It should be somewhat like those in Montreal and Washington.  Komatsu now have machines that can bore rectangular tunnels up to 6.2 m X 4.3 m which would be ideal for such tunnels. Two way bus traffic on Slater and vehicles on Queen St. could be used to carry the Albert St. traffic during construction.  There should probably be a ramp over the proposed extension of the Pont du Portage road to Bronson and then over Wellington St. to a tunnel entrance at the west side of the cliff.  The east end of the Albert St. tunnel should go just under the NAC garage and encompass stairs and escalators for a modest station there. It should then be linked to the Mackenzie King terminal with a second level transitway under the Mackenzie King Bridge but over the canal, if possible.  The bridge support system might be used to make a two lane lower level for the buses much like the Danforth Bridge in Toronto. However, it may eventually require a new two layer bridge over the canal which could be a suspension bridge to minimize structure under the bridge for tall boats.  Otherwise a rectangular tunnel under the canal could be constructed from Elgin to the Mackenzie King terminal and then to the Laurier terminal.

The boring machine could be used to make three shallow (~1 m) and adjacent parallel tunnels for the main tunnel under Albert St. The walls between the tunnels should be replaced with pillars so that it is more pleasant and so that the buses could move between the inside lane and outside lanes. The tunnel machine could be started at the ramp on the west end of Albert ST. so that they would not obstruct traffic during operation but the lanes above the machine should be protected from traffic. This is probably more efficient than a cut and cover system, however the underground utilities would need to be relocated before the tunnelling operation. The four lane tunnel could continue up to the Campus terminal as it is on a transitway. This transitway could be constructed in three stages with curb ramps to the surface route: from Bronson to Elgin; Elgin to Campus and then to Lees somewhat later if necessary.

The outside tunnels should be used for the various stops with 3 m wide platforms and stairs to the sidewalks above.  The platform should continue for most of the length of the tunnel so passengers can readily switch from one stop or route to another without having to go above to the street level.  The platforms could have moving sidewalks to speed up the transfer of passengers. Elevators and escalators should also be available and the tunnel should be bright and attractive as they will probably 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 stops and for emergency stops so other buses could continue to function efficiently on the transitway.  This system accommodates slow loading and unloading buses which could tie up a single lane of buses or trains.  There should be charging capabilities at least for the express bus stops. A high speed express bus could possibly save ten minutes or so of commute time over light rail which has to stop at each station.  There should be at least two stops for the long express buses and three for the shorter local buses. The light rail system cannot accommodate a high speed express train on a single track system. The four lane tunnels can also accommodate all types of plug-in hybrid buses, articulated plug-in hybrid buses and bi-articulated hybrid buses, electric buses and also Superbuses.  It is much safer than a single lane or rail tunnel and emergency service vehicles could quickly slip in behind any disabled bus.

Note, the bored or cut and cover tunnels can be done in sections of a few blocks as needed and as resources become available.  The 4 lane tunnels and the two platforms for the tunnel should be at least 18 m wide and 4.3 m high. The first section could be from Bronson to Elgin.  Access to the tunnel can be made with a short curb ramp on each side of the street.  The space under the platforms could be used to run some of the utility lines. These tunnels could be made by local contractors while the big dig for the proposed LRT requires a large boring machine and mostly outside workers and staff.

The second stage could be from Elgin to Laurier and should occur when the traffic on the Mackenzie King Bridge and at the adjacent intersections is excessive and slows down the bus traffic significantly even with bus controlled lights. There should be a flag stop by the NAC.

The excavated material from the tunnel could be used to construct a modest dam and dikes just below Remic Rapids to raise the water to that of Lac Deschênes.  Pipes could them be used to carry the water to turbines by the Chaudière dam.  The enhanced hydraulic pressure and extra generators would significantly increase the hydro power of the three generating facilities by perhaps 50 MW. This extra power would be available for a couple of months during the spring runoff and it could also be used for peak or emergency periods as the new reservoir could store enough water for several weeks at full power. A two lane road could be put on the dam which could be used by the STO rapid bus system to connect with the Tunney’s Pasture terminal otherwise a transitway on a new Chaudière Bridge could link up the two transitways at the LeBreton station.

The proposed shallow rectangular tunnels are more inviting than 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 system that can be quickly installed so that it does not impede traffic for very long.  The precast reinforced water resistant sections could be interlocked and held together with cables passing through each section.  Precast sections for the 3 bored rectangular tunnels are also installed as the tunnels progresses. These sections could be made in nearby LeBreton Flats or at Bayview so that they could be readily transported to the Albert – Nicholas street construction sites. The first stage would probably cost perhaps $500 million and might be completed and in operation in a couple of years. The second stage with a new bridge would also cost about $500 million and the new fleet of plug in articulated buses and chargers about $200 million for a total of $1.2 billion which is a saving of nearly a billion over the LRT proposal.

The city could benefit from a second core transitway tunnel under Rideau St. and linked to Queen St. and then to a bridge over the proposed Bronson extension to the Pont du Portage Bridge then to the LeBreton transit station.  This transitway could be made in two stages: King Edward to Confederation Square and Elgin, then from Elgin along Queen St. to the Albert St. ramp. A short Elgin section would connect to the Albert transitway so that the STO buses could initially return via this link and the LeBreton station and the Chaudière Bridge to Gatineau. Returning buses from Gatineau could join this transitway via the Chaudière Bridge at Booth St. and an underground junction at King Edward so that there would not be any big buses on Rideau or the downtown Wellington section in front of the Parliament buildings.  The STO buses should also be plug-in hybrid buses so that they would not pollute the tunnels. Both the Chaudière Bridge and eventually the Alexandra Bridge need to be replaced with six lane bridges with sidewalks and cycle lanes.  The two outside lanes on the bridges could be transitways. The transitway linking Queen St. and Rideau St. should pass under the southern end of Confederation Square but over the canal if at all possible.  Otherwise half a lock could be established just south of the Laurier Bridge and the canal excavated a metre or so and the water level lowered whenever any tall boats are using this section of the canal. A few of the new OC Transpo plug-in hybrid buses could also use this underground link to provide an alternative route to Gatineau which would return over the Chaudière bridge and then back on the transitway at the LeBreton terminal.

A transitway curb lane could be established along Montreal Rd. to the Airport Parkway to improve access along Montreal Rd. and for commuters in Gatineau via the proposed Kettle Island Bridge.  This curb transitway could eventually be extended to Orleans with a multilane road to help relieve the congestion on the main transitway and on the 174 highway.  There could also be ramps at Queen and Bank to accommodate routes 1, 2, 4 and 7 so these buses do not pass in front of the Parliament buildings.

The Albert St. tunnel will be near capacity shortly after completion and a third 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 transit line from Bayview to the LeBreton stations then to Slater and then to the Mackenzie King Bridge via a tunnel on Elgin St.  When the Mackenzie King – Hurdman section of the tunnel is at capacity then the local buses should be diverted to the surface route of this transitway.  Some could also return along Elgin and Main to 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.

A fourth transitway under Laurier might be explored in the future for buses on an inner loop for the core region to reduce the congestion of buses on the core streets and on other transitways and tunnels.  It could also be used to accommodate private buses from remote communities travelling along the Queensway.  Hence with transitways also under Queen, Albert and Slater it should be possible to eventually have four 4 lane transitway tunnels in the downtown core rather than the present two surface single lane routes.  Also note that these transit ways 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 tunnels and moving sidewalks.  However, note the proposed awkward LRT system swings north across these routes and thereby cuts off the possibility of the Rideau – Queen St. tunnel in the downtown core.

These tunnels will significantly reduce the bus traffic on the downtown core streets and improve the access to this region for visitors and distant commuters and for cyclists.  They will also reduce the commute time while the proposed LRT only reduces bus traffic by 30% and it will significantly increase the commute time, costs and stress (transfers). The Rideau – Queen St. transitway is also an interprovincial route for the STO buses so the Federal government should pay for a substantial part of this transitway.  Similarly a cut and cover tunnel could be under Maisonneuve or Eddy in Gatineau to relieve the congestion on these streets. The platforms and stares for these two transit tunnels could be finished in red garnet much like Confederation Boulevard to indicate a link between the two cities. This optimized system of transitways and tunnels should be able to handle the commuter traffic for several decades whereas the proposed awkward LRT will probably require higher fares and more subsidies to survive.

The speed limits and vehicle types on multilane highways should be staggered for different lanes to optimize the efficiency of highways and thereby save fuel and reduce GHG emissions.  The outside lane(s) should be for trucks, slow vehicles and single occupancy 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 lanes should be at ~100 km/h for 2+ occupancy vehicles and possibly single occupancy green vehicles.  However, the inside lane should be for multi (5+) 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 have a highway capability of ~4.5 l/100 km (0.9 l/passenger/100 km) which would then qualify it for a green license plate.  However, efficient Superbuses could travel at say ~140 km/hr on such lanes 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 (~160 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 reduce the commute time for suburban buses and those to the surrounding towns and villages.

Next Steps

· The proposed 4 lane shallow bus transitway tunnels for Ottawa’s downtown core with plug-in hybrid and articulated buses provides quicker and better service to both the local and suburban commuters. It also provides better service to the Rideau Centre and downtown business and offices at much less cost than the LRT being considered by the city.  Furthermore the LRT cannot go into a community and pick up passengers like a (smart) bus can and therefore most commuters would have to waste time transferring from a local bus to the proposed LRT system which is inconvenient and inefficient for the riders. Some commuters in the suburbs would have to transfer from a local collector bus to an express bus (twice) and then the train which wastes even more time.

· The city’s proposed $2.1 b LRT first stage is much more expensive than a comparable BRT (~$1.2 b) and causes huge traffic and passenger jams at each end of the line for transferring commuters.  These traffic and human jams will cause about a ten minute delay and ascending and descending 3 levels of stairs or escalators to the deep tunnels will cause another ten minute delay in commute time during peak times.  Hence commuters will spend at least 40 minutes more and more hassle 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.  Possibly ~20% or more of the riders will probably be completely frustrated and use other methods of commuting such as car pooling or using electric scooters or possibly work at home. The LRT only reduces the bus traffic by 30% and obviously it is not a good solution to Ottawa’s downtown congested streets and pollution problems or the long commute time for many riders.

· The city’s proposed LRT with the large boring machine 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. The Komatsu rectangular boring machine makes much nicer tunnels and smaller and possibly less expensive ones.

· The first proposed 4 lane tunnel for an expanded BRT system is under Albert Street and linked to Nicholas with eventually a two layer suspension bridge over the canal.  These tunnels could be made by the cut and cover technique or with the new Komatsu rectangular boring machine. The latter technique is probably better as it does not disrupt as much traffic and is relatively easy to construct with precast sections. These tunnels are readily accessible to the street for the commuter.  They also provide good access to businesses along Albert and adjacent streets and to the Rideau Centre, NAC and also to the Conference Centre which the proposed LRT does not.  The proposed BRT plan readily accommodates future transitways under Rideau, Queen, Slater and also Laurie.  It can also readily accommodate plug-in hybrid buses which the city may soon have so no new expensive trains and associated tracks, overhead power lines and service garage and associated test track are required. However, it is recommended that the city acquire a hundred or so plug-in hybrid bi-articulated buses for the BRT plan when they become available.

· The proposed trains for the LRT are at least twice the capital cost of similar plug-in bi-articulated buses and twice the operating cost.

· The proposed BRT 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 longer. The LRT system is not operational until the tunnel and all the stations are completely finished.

· The BRT system does not need to have the Tunney’s Pasture, Campus, Hurdman, St. Laurent and Blair stations revamped and thereby saves several hundred million dollars.

· Because the proposed LRT route swings north across Confederation Square and other potential routes it 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 until the tracks are cleared.  The trains must be spaced at least one minute apart while comparable buses with radars could be 20 seconds apart and therefore could carry more passengers.

· The proposed LRT will require a new fleet of expensive trains which are not funded by the Federal Government’s infrastructure program.  This and the expensive tracks and associated overhead power system and a new rail garage will add about half a billion dollars to the first stage of this transit system verses the author’s proposed BRT plan which could use the city’s new modified hybrid buses and the new and older garages.  Each of the next stages of the proposed LRT system will also waste another half billion or so of tax payer’s money.  The city’s proposed LRT system appears to be seriously flawed and the city should explore the proposed plug-in hybrid BRT system forthwith (this winter) to compare with the LRT system and then optimize the downtown transitways and associated vehicles with a wiser view to costs (taxes and fares) and commute time and hassle.

· The environmental assessment should also be done on both proposals this winter 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 the system 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 provide better business opportunities along the routes.  It could also provide an objective measure of the quality of service and commuting time of the two different proposals.

· Council should carefully mull over the two options this spring so that a decision can be made in the summer when the NCC Transit study is finished.  The city could then go to the Federal government with a formal funding request for the optimum system for their consideration and support in June 2010 subject to approval by the citizens in the November election.  The first stage of the BRT system, from Bronson to Elgin under Albert Street is straight forward and construction might begin in the spring of 2011 for either the cut and cover system or for the triple bored rectangular tunnels system.

· The possibility of upgrading the 177 new hybrid buses to plug-in ones with CNT batteries or ultra capacitor storage units should be explored this spring.  If successful then numerous buses should be upgraded with the ultra capacitors for a trial experiment.  The garages and a few terminals should then be equipped with hefty chargers so that these buses can travel most of the time on inexpensive and clean electricity.  Articulated and bi-articulated plug-in hybrid buses should be available in a few years and a hundred or so should be acquired to alleviate the congestion in the heavy routes in the east end.  Such plug-in hybrid buses will reduce the fuel consumption and associated costs and pollution by eventually ~80% or more.

· The proposed LRT and BRT systems and associated tunnels and stations are major capital, operating and commute challenges with associated fees and taxes.  The citizens of Ottawa should be able to vote on the two alternatives in the municipal election this fall.