Transitway conversion to LRT will NOT deliver faster travel times

[lrt's friend]

Many here are anxious for conversion of our bus Transitways to LRT. There may be many reasons for such a conversion but faster travel times are not likely one of them. Here is why.

1. Buses can leap frog each other on their way downtown. LRT trains cannot.
2. Express buses can be designated to not stop at certain stations. Since LRT trains cannot pass each other, LRT trains will have to stop at every station.
3. Buses are already running with 1 minute headways or better during peak periods on the Transitway. LRT will run less frequently thus adding a few minutes to waiting time.
4. The replacement of express buses with local shuttles and transfers to LRT will add a few minutes to travel time.
5. Transitway conversion may add stations that don’t exist presently. See proposals for LRT along Richmond Road. Each station stop will add a small amount to travel times.

The above helps explain why travel times by LRT from Barrhaven were expected to be longer than by express bus with the original LRT project.

There is one factor that will improve travel times. If we build a downtown tunnel, we will be eliminating downtown transit congestion. There is a limit to this as a tunnel will only be able to handle 2 interlined LRT routes without a significant deterioration in service frequency.

There are other reasons for conversion:

1. The ‘cool’ factor of LRT trains may attract new riders.
2. Lower operating costs achieved by multiple car trains. Those gains in efficiency are only achieved by not redeploying Transitway buses into the suburbs except as dictated by growing ridership.
3. Transit Oriented Development at or near stations is much more likely with LRT.
4. Elimination of buses downtown will enhance the downtown environment.

Two of the major justifications for the recent $14B announcement in British Columbia for transit expansion are improved service frequency and in some cases substantial travel time improvements.

Transitway conversion will not deliver improved service frequency and at best will have a neutral affect on travel times.

OK everybody, discuss.

[Aylmer]

Does that mean we should expand the current transitway, or make due with what we have?

:)

[p_xavier]

OK everybody, discuss.

You forgot the most important point: lower construction costs.

For the inner core, E-W link, if you want to find other cheap corridors from Dominion to Blair, I would be all for it. But the case is there are few and between. A conversion at about 20M$/km compared to 50M$/km for a new line is something that needs to be studied for a cost/benefit ratio. Would the new LRT line be far enough from the existing BRT line?

I disagree with you for many things.

- Low headways are the reasons why the Transitway is bad: they are lower than what they actually should be to respect timing. A higher headway with LRT will actually improve service, because the timing will be respected.

- Operating costs per user will go down with time, even if we put the Transitway buses as local buses, because the population and ridership increases annualy.

- You forgot to mention that you can get one line with a DT tunnel, but add extensive transfers destinations. This is what Toronto, Montreal, and soon Vancouver will now do. Transfers can be more efficient than interlinining for service.

- Dwelling times are shorter for LRT than a bus, because there are more doors available per passenger, and the speed for LRT can be improved compared to buses with precises acceleration and deccelaration, something you can't do properly with a bus.

- And for automation, Montreal uses it for 3 of their 4 lines, even if it doesn't look like it, at the time, users weren't comfortable with a train driving itself. Automation is not really expensive like it was done in MTL. Basically there's only one train allowed between stations at any time, as soon as the train arrives in a station, it slows down to stop exactly at the stop, when the doors are closed, it goes back up again to continue. This is extremely easy electrical system to build. Precision is not something you can do with BRT.

[Kitchissippi]

One aspect that never seems to get factored in when calculating travel times in the transitway is waiting for the right bus.

With an an LRT spine going through downtown all you have to do is board one train to a node station to catch a feeder bus. Because buses don't have to do long haul, we could probably afford to run the feeder bus routes more frequently than we do now. Sure there's a transfer, but the initial waiting time is reduced.

Imagine if LRT ran on the transitway alignment, east-west from Orleans to Kanata. Structure the buses so that:
- all current 30-series ran out of stations between Place d'Orleans and Blair
- all current 20-series from St-Laurent
- all 40-series from Hurdman and the SE transitway spine
- all 50-series from an O-Train Station
- all 60 series from Lincoln fields and the SW transitway spine
- all 70 series from Bayshore-Terry Fox
- 80-series remain as non-transitway cross town routes
- 90-series and 100s on unconverted transitways and extensions beyond the LRT (Kanata-Stittsville, Orleans-Rockland, etc)
- 0 to 19 are core area routes serving central area stations

We would end up with a much more efficient system, and because it is easier to understand, much more practical and useable.

[lrt's friend]

Does that mean we should expand the current transitway, or make due with what we have?

Not at all. I am just talking about conversion of the existing Transitway and how improved travel times may not be delivered with such a conversion.

lower construction costs.

That might be true but better service should be a major consideration in making any sort of major transit investment. If improved service is not delivered, why bother?

- Low headways are the reasons why the Transitway is bad: they are lower than what they actually should be to respect timing. A higher headway with LRT will actually improve service, because the timing will be respected.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

- Operating costs per user will go down with time, even if we put the Transitway buses as local buses, because the population and ridership increases annualy.

Redeploying the Transitway buses in the suburbs and adding LRT trains to the network will increase costs until ridership grows to compensate. It will be critical to redeploy buses to suburban routes to compensate for added transfer wait times. The question here. Will City Council actually do this unless the suburban buses are crowded? City Council may just redeploy these buses to replace buses being retired from service.

- You forgot to mention that you can get one line with a DT tunnel, but add extensive transfers destinations. This is what Toronto, Montreal, and soon Vancouver will now do. Transfers can be more efficient than interlinining for service.

I am not following how this affects travel time.

- Dwelling times are shorter for LRT than a bus, because there are more doors available per passenger, and the speed for LRT can be improved compared to buses with precises acceleration and deccelaration, something you can't do properly with a bus.

Yes, you are right about dwell times because of better access to LRT vehicles. I also assume that ticket handling will take place before you reach the platform, which will help a bit (this may be very expensive to implement). From what I understand, buses accelerate and deaccelerate faster than LRT which is faster than heavy rail. Buses can handle grades better than LRT which is better than heavy rail.

- And for automation, Montreal uses it for 3 of their 4 lines, even if it doesn't look like it, at the time, users weren't comfortable with a train driving itself. Automation is not really expensive like it was done in MTL. Basically there's only one train allowed between stations at any time, as soon as the train arrives in a station, it slows down to stop exactly at the stop, when the doors are closed, it goes back up again to continue. This is extremely easy electrical system to build. Precision is not something you can do with BRT.

Very interesting, but I am not sure how that affects travel times.

With an an LRT spine going through downtown all you have to do is board one train to a node station to catch a feeder bus. Because buses don't have to do long haul, we could probably afford to run the feeder bus routes more frequently than we do now. Sure there's a transfer, but the initial waiting time is reduced.

Yes, I have already mentioned that increasing feeder route frequency will be critical to make up for transfer wait times at LRT stations. Still, as I have described, express buses not stopping at every Transitway station will move faster than LRT trains that have to stop at every station.

OK.

More frequent feeder service + transfer wait times at LRT stations + shorter station dwell times + LRT trains having to stop at all stations on the way downtown.

Will the overall result of this be faster or slower travel times?

[Kitchissippi]

The title of this thread is like troll bait. You shouldn't pass an unproven and theoretical opinion as fact. You should have posed it as a question instead: "Will Transitway conversion to LRT deliver faster travel time?"

I find the concept of travel time subjective and not that supremely important, much like the way drivers only remember incidents of bad traffic and rarely take into account the time it takes to find a parking spot and walk to their final destination.

Does it include initial waiting time? Does it factor in time and ease of boarding and disembarking? Is there a wheelchair on board? What season are we talking about? Is the waiting/transfer time in comfort?

Your views are paradoxical, and your arguments for not touching BRT lines are practically saying that it is better than LRT. If so we should just build the bus tunnel and rip up the O-train tracks for more Transitways so that buses can leapfrog all the way to Carleton University and Riverside South, and give up any and all plans for LRT.

Look at the evolution of any mature transit system in a big city and subway lines are mostly built to replace former over-capacity tram or bus routes. it is an evolution. LRT is an economy of scale, and it needs to be built on the clientele spawned by the transitway to be truly feasible. New BRT routes should be built as spurs, for possible future conversion to LRT.

You seem to think that we can have a parallel system of BRT and LRT. I don't, I think they should be divergent and complementary, with BRT subservient to LRT. Having two systems doing the same thing is wasteful, like having two cars when one will do.

Replacing a several dozen buses belching down the same corridor for tens of kilometres with a few of trains is clearly the sane choice. I find that arguments like this looking at one factor in isolation muddles the true issues and it's actually what's keeping this city from adopting a proper LRT system.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

1. Buses can leap frog each other on their way downtown. LRT trains cannot.

Wrong.

Our Transitway stations are built in such a way that should we decide to do so, there could a total of four tracks; two for the local stop, and two as bypass lanes.

2. Express buses can be designated to not stop at certain stations. Since LRT trains cannot pass each other, LRT trains will have to stop at every station.

If we decide to do what I mentioned above, then this will become a non-issue.

3. Buses are already running with 1 minute headways or better during peak periods on the Transitway. LRT will run less frequently thus adding a few minutes to waiting time.

Um, proof?

4. The replacement of express buses with local shuttles and transfers to LRT will add a few minutes to travel time.

Who says that we'll be replacing express buses if we convert the Transitway or even just parts of it?

5. Transitway conversion may add stations that don’t exist presently. See proposals for LRT along Richmond Road. Each station stop will add a small amount to travel times.

What? Dude, if we're gonna put LRT on Richmond Road, how could that possibly affect buses on the Transitway? :rolleyes:

Also, you'd think the city and its budgetary crisis would make council try to save money which means converting existing BRT stations to LRT, not adding more...

[lrt's friend]

What? Dude, if we're gonna put LRT on Richmond Road, how could that possibly affect buses on the Transitway?

Please see the discussion elsewhere concerning filling in the gap in the Western Transitway that presently uses the Ottawa River Parkway. The ideas presented added stations. I don't disagree with the extra stations but each station stop does add slightly to travel time for those coming from the suburbs.

[Kitchissippi]

Please see the discussion elsewhere concerning filling in the gap in the Western Transitway that presently uses the Ottawa River Parkway. The ideas presented added stations. I don't disagree with the extra stations but each station stop does add slightly to travel time for those coming from the suburbs.

Dominion station was added not too long ago and there have been talks of adding a station at New Orchard to serve all the highrises at Ambleside. I think it is not fair to run a rapid transit line through a neighbourhood and not service it, all for the sake of travel time to the suburbs. It's like having an freeway in your backyard that you can't use.

[AuxTown]

Dominion station was added not too long ago and there have been talks of adding a station at New Orchard to serve all the highrises at Ambleside. I think it is not fair to run a rapid transit line through a neighbourhood and not service it, all for the sake of travel time to the suburbs. It's like having an freeway in your backyard that you can't use.

I agree with you. There has to be some kind of penalty for living in the suburbs and a bonus for living inside the Greenbelt (and paying for it in most cases).

[Kitchissippi]

Actually thats major thing that pisses me off living close to the Transitway is that even though your community has to put up with the noise and the stinky fumes (as well as the divisive ROW), when you go to the station during rush hour you have to wait for a crowded 90-series bus while dozens of relatively roomy express buses pass you by.

This is the biggest reason why I think BRT should be relegated to the suburbs and the inner city Transitways converted to LRT. The core of the system should be appropriate to its urban context, not just a conduit for a suburban-centric solution.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Actually thats major thing that pisses me off living close to the Transitway is that even though your community has to put up with the noise and the stinky fumes (as well as the divisive ROW), when you go to the station during rush hour you have to wait for a crowded 90-series bus while dozens of relatively roomy express buses pass you by.

This is the biggest reason why I think BRT should be relegated to the suburbs and the inner city Transitways converted to LRT. The core of the system should be appropriate to its urban context, not just a conduit for a suburban-centric solution.

:tup:

[miketoronto]

Be very cautious before conversion of the transitway to LRT. The transitway offers something most transit systems can not, and that is speed.
Convert to LRT, and you may actually see ridership go down, as transit service becomes slower.
Ottawa's transitway is a success, because it is fast and offers direct service from many suburban districts. That is why Ottawa's ridership is higher then many cities with extensive LRT systems.

So think about it a lot before you agree to conversion. Because your 20min bus trip, just may turn into a 45min LRT trip.

[lrt's friend]

This is the biggest reason why I think BRT should be relegated to the suburbs and the inner city Transitways converted to LRT. The core of the system should be appropriate to its urban context, not just a conduit for a suburban-centric solution.

I don't see this as a solution for anything. You will end up with LRT trains that are just as crowded as the buses when they reach your stop, while slowing everybody's trip to downtown.

Any major LRT investment must be justified by expected ridership growth and the most growth will come from the growing suburbs and not the population stagnant inner urban areas. I am not saying to serve only the suburbs. I am just stating reality about where the most new ridership is likely to come from.

There are solutions for the issues described.

1. Build a diverse rail transit network. Commuter trains with few stops to exurbs. LRT to suburbs with a moderate number of stops. Tramways on semi-exclusive ROWs with fairly frequent stops to serve the most urban areas. If properly designed, all of these can complement each other to provide better service for everybody.

2. Make use of the 3 track proposal, which allows for local trains for the urban area and express trains for the suburbs. Quality of service is provided to both parts of our community.

I just wonder if we have enough money to fund either of these approaches but I will be happy to see either or both approaches implemented.

I think if we going to come up with the best possible solution, we have to forgo the east vs west vs south or urban vs suburban approach. We need to look at our overall transit network, and see what additions will give us the most bang for our buck.

[lrt's friend]

Be very cautious before conversion of the transitway to LRT. The transitway offers something most transit systems can not, and that is speed.
Convert to LRT, and you may actually see ridership go down, as transit service becomes slower.
Ottawa's transitway is a success, because it is fast and offers direct service from many suburban districts. That is why Ottawa's ridership is higher then many cities with extensive LRT systems.

So think about it a lot before you agree to conversion. Because your 20min bus trip, just may turn into a 45min LRT trip.

This was the whole point of this thread. A discussion of service speed, which will be a major factor is achieving ridership growth. Much of the discussion here has been about other issues.

It irks me when the discussion declines to the level of who 'deserves' to be served with rapid transit and who does not. This kind of thinking killed the last project, and if it continues will make it virtually impossible to get another project off the ground. We need to look at the bigger picture.

[miketoronto]

I actually read a report once stating that ridership in the areas of Portland on a % basis actually declined when LRT was built and the faster bus system that was in place before hand was taken out of service.

At the end of the day, people want fast service, and they really could care less what mode it is. Which is why Ottawa has such high ridership.

Building a train will not just attract people because it is an LRT. I live near a subway, and still most people in my subdivision drive downtown, because even by subway, it still takes over double the time to commute downtown then by car(there are certain service design issues as to why this is).

So just make sure what you are getting into. I even read a blog once from Barrhaven people, asking why they should be supporting LRT, when their travel times to downtown will be doubling compared to the transitway express buses they take now.

[Kitchissippi]

If we are going to stick solely with that kind of transit planning, then we should forget about curbing urban sprawl. The argument isn't about who deserves the benefit of public transit more, it's achieving a balance.

The problem in Ottawa is that the majority of the transit spending and infrastructure has been heavily weighted towards service to the suburbs. The result is a "from the outside-in" approach where the buses speed away in outer areas where there are the least problems (because they were the easiest and cheapest parts to implement) and completely fails in the core (where it the most expensive to solve).

It's time to think from the inside-out for a change, and service the inner city a bit better. Ridership will increase with intensification over the long term.

By the way, ridership in Portland today is way up from the pre-LRT days, while ridership in Ottawa is actually stagnant, even on a slow decline if you factor in the increase in population since the initial Transitway.

[northbay]

By the way, ridership in Portland today is way up from the pre-LRT days, while ridership in Ottawa is actually stagnant, even on a slow decline if you factor in the increase in population since the initial Transitway.

hells yea it is (about the portland part)!!! max has seen increases as far as i can remember!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2148/2213405988_e4dc6d3db9_o.gif

oh yea, my source:http://trimet.org/pdfs/trimetfactsheet.pdf

it sounds like this is a fight between the traffic needs of the city and the suburbs. hopefully, there can be a peaceful balance (the there can be a train :D)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

If we are going to stick solely with that kind of transit planning, then we should forget about curbing urban sprawl. The argument isn't about who deserves the benefit of public transit more, it's achieving a balance.

The problem in Ottawa is that the majority of the transit spending and infrastructure has been heavily weighted towards service to the suburbs. The result is a "from the outside-in" approach where the buses speed away in outer areas where there are the least problems (because they were the easiest and cheapest parts to implement) and completely fails in the core (where it the most expensive to solve).

It's time to think from the inside-out for a change, and service the inner city a bit better. Ridership will increase with intensification over the long term.

By the way, ridership in Portland today is way up from the pre-LRT days, while ridership in Ottawa is actually stagnant, even on a slow decline if you factor in the increase in population since the initial Transitway.

Again, :tup:

[AuxTown]

There's no doubt that there will be growing pains in the beginning and much of them will be due to bus service disruptions during construction. Sometimes I think it would be better if the first phase of LRT does not affect the transitway at all. For example, double-tracking O-train to airport/RS, Hull via POW, and running the DT tunnel down Queen, Laurier, or Gloucester. That way, we could get it up and running and then deal with screwing up the BRT system. Nothing gets people onto public transit quicker than major construction on the non-transitway downtown streets.

[miketoronto]

Lets clear some things up here between Ottawa and Portland.

First: OC TRANSPO serves a population that is less then the area TRI-MET in Portland serves. TRI-MET services something like 1.5 million, while OC TRANSPO serves around 770,100 people.

OC TRANSPO has higher ridership, at about 355,000 riders a day, compared to Portland's 307,000 riders a day. It should also be noted that Portland counts LRT and bus riders seperate(unlinked trips). So in actual respect, the ridership is lower, as many LRT riders take a bus first. While in Ottawa, the 355,000 figure is linked trips. Meaning Ottawa ridership is even higher.

Approx 5% of Metropolitan Portland residents take public transit to work. Approx 20% of Metropolitan Ottawa residents take public transit to work.

Portland's LRT network at approx 75KM, carries about 100,000 riders a day.
Ottawa's transitway at approx 46KM, carries 200,000 riders a day.

This is not a debate on the busway being better then LRT or to turn it into a fight about that.

All I would like to point out, is that LRT is not always the service we need to worship like the queen, and that we should not always just discredit what Ottawa has.

Could the Transitway be better? Yes. But at the same time, I don't think it should be bashed as much as it is either. Because, no matter what, Ottawa still kicks the ass of all its peer cities, with the highest per capita ridership numbers, highest percentage of people who take transit to work, highest number of people who use transit to access downtown, etc.

There may be room for improvment, and LRT may be a part of that mix. But at the same time, look at the success the system you have has had.

And before jumping on the LRT bandwagon, think about what a total switch would mean. You have to balance it out to not only serve the inner city residents, but to also keep the speedy service for the residents who live in the outter areas. You may not like people in Orlean's, but if you cut their easy transit ride, then you are just adding more traffic, less transit ridership, more pollution, etc.

And a side note about Portland. Ridership is up, but the LRT is known for being very slow. And the mayor of one of the suburbs the LRT serves, is actually calling for the re-introduction of the former buses that use to provide commuter service to downtown, because the buses took half the time the so called speedy LRT took.

So you have to weigh all the options.
At the end of the day, no matter if it is inner city or suburbs, transit must compete with the car. And if the updating of service is going to make transit slower and less competative, then is that really an improvment?
There is a reason less then half of downtown Portland commuters take public transit. While over 60% of downtown Ottawa workers take transit. And that is because the Transitway as it stands right now provides much faster and more frequent service.

And if you are going to do LRT, do it right. Most LRT systems today are just streetcar lines, that are slow and offer no advantage over a bus. Most of Portland's LRT is like this, and that is why it is so slow and takes over 40min to get you someplace you can drive in 15min.

[Rathgrith]

^^ Have you not heard of a place called Quebec? (Sorry "Keabec" for those living in Toronto.) Because they have another 200 000 living there in Gatineau.

[lrt's friend]

I think Portland has done a commendable job, but even with all the LRT lines it has developed, it's per capita transit useage is still not much more than half of Ottawa's. Transit trips in both cities are almost identical but OC Transpo serves about 850,000 while Portland has about 1.5M.

Why has Portland's ridership grown? Easy. They have continued to expand their LRT network. Why has Ottawa's ridership not grown as much (please, there has been some growth for a number of consecutive years)? Easy again. Ottawa's Transitway system has hardly been expanded since the completion of the SE Transitway in the mid 1990s.

We can learn from Portland, and Calgary, and Vancouver, but remember we are ahead of them all in transit useage, so there are limits to what we can learn. Part of their success also relates to city planning particularly job growth downtown.


This 'inside-out', 'outside-in' argument is totally bogus. We have one major problem and that is downtown congestion. Most people recognize that and this needs to be addressed and I will be surprised if it isn't. There are no similar congestion problems anywhere else in the network. Other than the downtown issue, which was really an issue of the huge cost, the rest of the present Transitway network was developed starting from the centre of the city outward. We have not been spending enormous amounts of money in the suburbs. We still haven't completed it to Kanata (after 25 years). We only recently completed an extension to Barrhaven and even that is incomplete. Service beyond Blair Road is only bus lanes. Most of Transitway investment has been inside the Greenbelt, in other words the urban part of Ottawa. Furthermore, any future LRT plan will be designed from inside-out once the downtown issue is addressed but we also have to understand the very common complaint that our transit system is too downtown-centric and fails to recognize the growing travel needs elsewhere. Just look at the Vancouver plan. Much of the investment will be going towards building suburban BRT.

It is also commendable to use LRT to encourage intensification within the urban area but this is a long-term benefit and this alone is not going to discourage sprawl significantly. Also, it will take years to achieve significant ridership growth that comes with intensification. Let's face it, most young families don't want to live in a centretown condo. Maybe some will, but they will be in the minority.

Again, I find it very surprising that non-travel time issues are being used as the main reasons for building LRT. I am not going to use transit regularly while transit continues to take 5X compared to using my car to get to my office. I believe thousands of others are making similar decisions. Improve travel times significantly, and some will switch to transit.

I will give an example from my personal experience of using LRT. When I visited Portland, I used LRT to travel from the airport to my downtown hotel. I was happy to do so and it saved me a significant taxi fare. Was it fast? No. A taxi would have been faster. Despite the fact that I was travelling at 10:30 pm and there were few other passengers, we still had to stop at every station even when there were no passengers getting on or off.

So just make sure what you are getting into. I even read a blog once from Barrhaven people, asking why they should be supporting LRT, when their travel times to downtown will be doubling compared to the transitway express buses they take now.

This has been totally exagerated by LRT opponents. Actually travel times to the end of the line in Barrhaven were going to be only a few minutes longer than by the Transitway. Most of the comparisons were from Fallowfield Station, which was not on the LRT line and therefore comparing apples and oranges. I once checked a bus schedule for an express bus servicing the same area as the LRT route and the travel times were only slightly different. Of course, travel times to many non-downtown transit destinations were going to be cut significantly, and then the consideration that walk-on access was going to be greatly enhanced over the Transitway, and this was going to encourage off-peak transit useage.

[lrt's friend]

^^ Have you not heard of a place called Quebec? (Sorry "Keabec" for those living in Toronto.) Because they have another 200 000 living there in Gatineau.

STO serves Gatineau, not OC Transpo. To add 200,000 from Gatineau, we need to add the STO ridership. MikeToronto's analysis is valid other than underestimating Ottawa's population a bit.

[eemy]

^^ Have you not heard of a place called Quebec? (Sorry "Keabec" for those living in Toronto.) Because they have another 200 000 living there in Gatineau.

But OCTranspo doesn't really service the majority of that population.

[Kitchissippi]

This 'inside-out', 'outside-in' argument is totally bogus. We have one major problem and that is downtown congestion. Most people recognize that and this needs to be addressed and I will be surprised if it isn't. There are no similar congestion problems anywhere else in the network. Other than the downtown issue, which was really an issue of the huge cost, the rest of the present Transitway network was developed starting from the centre of the city outward.

How so is it bogus? You just proved it in your second sentence. The fact that the downtown portion is a complete afterthought, showing complete disrespect towards what the deluge of buses do to the downtown environment is precisely why I think it's an outside-in approach.

Again, I find it very surprising that non-travel time issues are being used as the main reasons for building LRT. I am not going to use transit regularly while transit continues to take 5X compared to using my car to get to my office. I believe thousands of others are making similar decisions. Improve travel times significantly, and some will switch to transit.

See that's the difference between urban and suburban mentality when it comes to public transportation. Suburbanites just want a fast way to get to work, and when they get home they want to use their car for everything else. What they want is a single purpose solution, which results in an underutilized system outside of rush hour, like a car that sits in the driveway when you don't need it. OK, let them have BRT so we can shut it down when they don't need it.

Urban people face the problems of congested narrow streets and lack of parking on a daily basis and are likely to use public transit to do ordinary things like shopping for groceries or going out for entertainment because it is more convenient than driving. Providing an efficient means of circulating within the urban core provides a higher return on high ticket investment (ie a subway) in the long term because it is used at all hours. This is the kind of investment that Ottawa hasn't made at all.

I will give an example from my personal experience of using LRT. When I visited Portland, I used LRT to travel from the airport to my downtown hotel. I was happy to do so and it saved me a significant taxi fare. Was it fast? No. A taxi would have been faster. Despite the fact that I was travelling at 10:30 pm and there were few other passengers, we still had to stop at every station even when there were no passengers getting on or off.

Ya, well taking a taxi from Ottawa Airport is also faster than taking the Transitway. I've also been to Portland and I find much fewer faults in their transit system than ours. We can only dream of doing what Portland does. Their "Fareless Square" concept alone shows how much they are committed to pumping life into their downtown core. It's one of those things that proves there is a lot more to making public transit better than just faster travel time to the suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

All I can say is that I am totally stunned.

Travel time is unimportant?

Service to the suburbs in unimportant?

Ridership is unimportant?

Portland's lower ridership transit system is superior and the model to be followed?

We should make no effort to influence suburban travel patterns?

Cost/benefit analysis of what should be built first is unimportant? We should have built a downtown tunnel first at the expense of our entire Transitway network? The costs are likely in the same range. If we had built the tunnel first, we would have run out of money and little or none of the Transitway would have been built and maybe some of those corridors would no longer be available for transit of any kind.

You shouldn't expect congestion when you live in centretown? Maybe we should just fence off centretown from the suburbs. The easiest way to eliminate congestion from downtown is simply to move most of the jobs out of there like so many American cities have done.

I have two questions for Kitchissippi.

How would your rapid transit system operate? Give us a bit of a description.

What is the dividing line between the urban and suburban area?

You know, the whole issue of congestion and narrow streets and what areas should get priority service is kind of ridiculous. It is like we are dialing back the clock to the 1930s when Ottawa was much smaller. The area with narrow streets is really quite small. Essentially, we are talking about the area served by Ottawa's streetcars at its peak. Get the book on Ottawa's streetcars and look at the 1929 map on the inside cover. This is the area to receive priority according to this rationale. An area spanning from Rockcliffe to Britannia and south to Ottawa South. Then there is the question of where do we build the corridors in these densely built up areas. We should pretend it is 1929 eventhough demographics have changed substantially and population density has decreased as household sizes have declined. I don't know how this all leads us to a better transit system for Ottawa. I don't know how this leads us to a useable subway even. Why would we even contemplate a subway when surface routes are possible, with the exception of downtown? Why would we priortize only centretown when every other city is extending their rapid transit further out into the suburbs? Look at Toronto. Their subways are going to be extended out into the York region. Montreal recently extended its subway into Laval. Vancouver wants to extend its Skytrain to Surrey. Calgary is extending the C-Train closer and closer to the outer edge of their suburbs. There is no consistency in the arguments being presented and with what is happening in other cities with sucessful rail transit systems. In any event, what is good for Portland is not necessarily good for Ottawa's situation.

I visited Raliegh NC in June. We do not want a city like this, where transit is built from the city centre out, and the suburbs have simply outpaced the transit system resulting in very low density suburbs which are unservable by transit. Almost nobody uses transit there as a result.

[Rathgrith]

STO serves Gatineau, not OC Transpo. To add 200,000 from Gatineau, we need to add the STO ridership. MikeToronto's analysis is valid other than underestimating Ottawa's population a bit.

No, but I can still use my OC Transpo bus pass to ride the STO.

[Deez]

I have mixed feelings with regards to what you guys have been arguing about...please consider the following points.

1) The goal of our transportation plans should be focused on minimizing total trip lengths (for economic, operational, and environmental sustainability). This means that a transit system whose MAIN focus is to ferry people from their homes in the burbs to their jobs downtown should not be in our long term vision. However, I do agree that it is important to get rapid transit into outlying areas to influence development patterns. There should be a balance between building new lines in the core where getting people out of cars and promoting intensification is much easier, and servicing new areas with rapid transit that will help them evolve into more sustainable communities.

2. I've come to the conclusion that conversion of the transitway, at least in part, is inevitable. Let's start with what we know: council wants no buses on surface streets downtown. That leaves us with 4 options: bus tunnel, LRT on surface, Bus/LRT tunnel, or LRT tunnel. A bus tunnel would be a significant expense because it would have to be at least 3 lanes (to allow overtaking of a stalled bus) and would require extensive ventilation. It also wouldn't meet the travel demand for the 2031 horizon year (300 buses/hr...you'll have to trust me on that one...). So scratch the bus tunnel. As for LRT on surface, we already saw how people reacted to that last year...so scratch LRT on surface. Bus/LRT tunnel is ridiculously stupid I won't even address it. This leaves us with an LRT tunnel. If this tunnel is built, what would be the most efficient way of joining it to the rest of the system? Is it running the line along the NS O-train line and making all bus passengers transfer at Bayview/Hurdman? Probably not...you would need huge facilities to accomodate those transfers and you would lose a lot of travel time to boardings. In my mind, if you accept that an LRT tunnel is in the cards, the only way it will work is to convert the transitway from Blair to Baseline and having express buses serving staggered stations (as Kitchissippi illustrated). This minimizes travel time and transfers.

3.
Why would we priortize only centretown when every other city is extending their rapid transit further out into the suburbs? Look at Toronto. Their subways are going to be extended out into the York region.

In my mind, Toronto's approach to extending their subway is pure lunacy. The Yonge/Spadina line is already at capacity downtown...why would you want to attract even more riders to that line? Their money would be much better spent implementing their old plans for an Eglinton subway or an alternative downtown line.

[Kitchissippi]

Not once in my arguments did I use the term "unimportant". However I do not hold the myopic view that travel time is the only thing or the most important thing in a public transit system.

If there is one thing that has been slowly degrading over the years in Ottawa, it's the dignity of the passengers. The Transitway has all the appeal of an efficient sewer system. The cheapness of the implementation is catching up, and going to a station just about ranks the same as a visit to a public restroom.

You can't compare Ottawa to any American city. Transit usage here was already high well before the Transitway. Why? because it's largely a government town and employment is concentrated in a few areas where parking is restricted. Try renting a parking spot downtown or Tunney's on a typical government salary and you won't even afford driving even if there was no traffic. The high ridership isn't wholly attributable to OC Transpo's level of service, it's mostly demographics and economy.

How would I design a proper transit system for Ottawa? Easy, it's like that child's game of "fit the right shape into the proper hole". Clearly, the wrong piece is sitting in the central hole and the puzzle can't be properly finished until it is replaced with the right one. Are we so scared of admitting we made a mistake there and go so far as cutting a bigger hole so that the wrong piece will fit badly? We can't engage in proper conceptual thinking if we are unwilling to clear some of the game pieces off the Ottawa transit game board.

[Ottawade]

Urban people face the problems of congested narrow streets and lack of parking on a daily basis and are likely to use public transit to do ordinary things like shopping for groceries or going out for entertainment because it is more convenient than driving. Providing an efficient means of circulating within the urban core provides a higher return on high ticket investment (ie a subway) in the long term because it is used at all hours. This is the kind of investment that Ottawa hasn't made at all.


I'm not going to chime in too hard on this because I honestly don't have enough knowledge of the options to form an opinion I'm ready to argue on behalf of. Regardless of that, this paragraph hit the nail on the head for me. I don't really mind if transpo takes me longer to get somewhere as long as it gets me to all the places I need to go whenever I need to take it. As a center town resident I'm at the point where despite its being faster, and despite it being available 24/7 I will likely be ridding myself of my car. It's cheaper, greener, and I can read more by taking the public transpo around. But its not merely a way to and from work, it has to take me to a night on the town, take me shopping on the weekends, etc.

[lrt's friend]

In my mind, Toronto's approach to extending their subway is pure lunacy. The Yonge/Spadina line is already at capacity downtown...why would you want to attract even more riders to that line? Their money would be much better spent implementing their old plans for an Eglinton subway or an alternative downtown line.

Maybe you are right, but where is the money to build a new subway from downtown Toronto to the northern suburbs? My point being that service is being extended further out. We still have the time to build enough surplus capacity into our plans.

Kitchissippi - Nobody is denying that we need to do something downtown. Have I said anything to the contrary? I haven't even said that travel time should be the only consideration. It is still an important consideration if you are going to get people to leave their cars at home. How would you sell your rapid transit plan, if travel times are 10 minutes longer for everybody living in Orleans? I think a few people will question a $2B expenditure if that is the result.

I have talked about downtown capacity many times before. It is generally accepted that BRT and LRT have similar capacities. So a switch from BRT to LRT downtown does not buy us that much additional capacity. Sure, we get rid of the cross streets and that will help a bit. But if city council wants to get all the buses off downtown streets, we better start thinking of 2 tunnels or a tiered tunnel that can handle more than two sets of tracks.

Regarding passenger dignity, how is any better if we have to make most passengers stand on a train from Baseline Station to downtown? If we try to funnel all passengers into a single tunnel, more passengers will be standing than at present.

[lrt's friend]

I'm not going to chime in too hard on this because I honestly don't have enough knowledge of the options to form an opinion I'm ready to argue on behalf of. Regardless of that, this paragraph hit the nail on the head for me. I don't really mind if transpo takes me longer to get somewhere as long as it gets me to all the places I need to go whenever I need to take it. As a center town resident I'm at the point where despite its being faster, and despite it being available 24/7 I will likely be ridding myself of my car. It's cheaper, greener, and I can read more by taking the public transpo around. But its not merely a way to and from work, it has to take me to a night on the town, take me shopping on the weekends, etc.

I think that is great. I think the more diverse our transit network becomes, the more accessible the city becomes to you. And the more accessible it becomes for you, other people will also start making similar decisions. That's why I favour investing our limited funds in new rapid transit routes rather than rebuilding what is working well. Sure there is a problem with Albert and Slater but that is a capacity issue during peak periods only. There is no need to simply scrap it. We just need to increase capacity and most of us agree that a LRT tunnel is the best choice. All we have to do is connect the LRT tunnel to new rapid transit routes radiating from downtown that complement the Transitways. Inevitably, some bus users will find the new LRT routes more convenient and will switch their travel plans. This is best way to reduce congestion along Albert/Slater. Give people good choices, instead of forcing inconvenience on them.

Unfortunately, a large portion of the population lead very busy lives. Travel time is going to be important in choosing transit. A more diverse rapid transit web will inevitably provide many new options providing faster travel times, maybe not everywhere, but certainly between many destinations.

[miketoronto]

In terms of Gatineau, you would have to add the STO ridership of about 55,000 riders a day to the figure. Which puts Ottawa area transit use at over 400,000 riders a day. Well above other cities of similar size.

As for travel time, I believe it is the single biggest factor aside from walking access, that is the factor on if people take transit or not.

Even from my own conversations with people, I have yet to really talk with anyone that hates transit and would not consider using it. But all non-users be it Ottawa, Toronto, NYC, or whatever, always state the same thing. And that is "I would use transit, but it takes double the time to get to work then driving".
Travel time is a big factor. And it relates to the inner city and suburbs. Inner city residents will not take transit either, unless it is competative.

Transit must be competative or it will fail.
The Toronto Transit Commission did a study of non-transit users. The number one reason non-users do not use transit, is "travel time".

And just a note about Ottawa. People are not riding transit because they are poor. Ottawa has I believe the second highest income levels in Canada.
Yes there are parking restrictions in downtown. But there are also restrictions in other cities with poor transit. People will not be forced onto it. They take it because it offers a good service.

[lrt's friend]

I have to agree miketoronto. Travel time may not be the only consideration but it is a very important one.

Just go back to the N-S LRT debate.

Didn't the opponents keep reminding us about travel times to Barrhaven? Didn't the opponents exagerate travel times to make their point stronger? Didn't the opponents use the term 'glorified streetcar' to re-emphasize the slow speed of service? Didn't the opponents complain repeatedly about Albert/Slater congestion, ie slow service downtown?

I rest my case.

Come up with another LRT project that can easily be criticized for offering slow service and it will be doomed.

[p_xavier]

I have to agree miketoronto. Travel time may not be the only consideration but it is a very important one.

Just go back to the N-S LRT debate.

Didn't the opponents keep reminding us about travel times to Barrhaven? Didn't the opponents exagerate travel times to make their point stronger? Didn't the opponents use the term 'glorified streetcar' to re-emphasize the slow speed of service? Didn't the opponents complain repeatedly about Albert/Slater congestion, ie slow service downtown?

I rest my case.

Come up with another LRT project that can easily be criticized for offering slow service and it will be doomed.

I've been out of the discussions, because I was thinking that me and now LRT's (BRT) Friend was monopolising the discussions.

I mostly agree with both sides here,

- I would rather have new LRT lines than to convert the BRT sections, but that won't be possible for lack of corridors available.

- Cost is another factor, what will the converted Transitway conversion will bring in terms of benefits (both time and cost). I personally think that converting the Transitway will bring new life to the desolated areas of the existing stations, and will cost much less, thus creating TOD. Ridership in Laval doubled when the new subway stations opened. A bus isn't just the same.

- Suburbs will get a complete Transitway system for 2015. These sections will be underutilised for a while. It is time to put the rapid transit system for the core. Many new condos are up in downtown, and it's time to reward people who are enviromentally friendlier.

- The fact that the N-S LRT line was cancelled was about speed and ridership, I still find the original project a big waste of taxpayers money. Miketoronto mentioned many times that speed is important, and yes, it is. Are there ways to achieve better speed than our current BRT system than LRT? Yes there are! We shouldn't shut down the downtown secctions of Albert and Slater until there is a mean of offering better speed than right now. There can be lanes reserved on the 417 and parkways to achieve BRT express service, it will even be faster than the current system. Another way to do this is to offer a suburban/exurban railway system, or offering a third rail for LRT stations. LRT can be faster than BRT, it just has to be implemented correctly while allowing operation costs to decrease. NO MORE GLORIFIED STREETCAR AND STATIONS EVERY 300M! I have been a strong opponent of using on street LRT, as it removes operating costs advantage and speed advantage and it augments the risks for accidents. We are building a spine for our transit system now, we don't need a broken back when it opens.

[Deez]

Here's an empirical observation:

Travel time becomes more significant the the more you increase trip distance. So if you're designing a shuttle for Joe Barrhaven to get to his Queen St. office, then yes travel time is very important. However, if you're designing a way for Joe Centretown to go grocery shopping, then frequency and ease of access are obviously much more important.

Be careful not to put all your riders in one basket.

[lrt's friend]

Service frequency and access is directly related to travel time. If you have to walk 3 blocks to reach transit, and then it only runs every 30 minutes, this will affect your overall travel time. I am neither Joe Barrhaven nor Joe Downtown, but my travel distance to work is quite short. My travel time is directly related to access and frequency.

[miketoronto]

If you build LRT, it has to be like Calgary or St Louis. Both cities have LRT lines that basically act like subways, with far spaced stations, and total right of way(except in Calgary with the downtown section).

Edmonton is also a good example, where the entire LRT system is grade seperated.

Other cities like Portland use medians in the middle of main streets, and even with signal priority, the services are slow and do not offer an advantage over the car.

[Deez]

Service frequency and access is directly related to travel time. If you have to walk 3 blocks to reach transit, and then it only runs every 30 minutes, this will affect your overall travel time. I am neither Joe Barrhaven nor Joe Downtown, but my travel distance to work is quite short. My travel time is directly related to access and frequency.

Fair enough...but what I said still applies. For the Barrhaven-Ottawa commute, the time spent in the vehicle is more important than the time accessing and frequency because you usually have a set time when you head to work and you know the transit schedule. More spur-of-the-moment inner city trips require accessibility and frequency.

If you build LRT, it has to be like Calgary or St Louis. Both cities have LRT lines that basically act like subways, with far spaced stations, and total right of way(except in Calgary with the downtown section).

Neither of those cities is very good model for urban sustainability... St. Louis is a doughnut and Calgary is sprawlville.

[Kitchissippi]

Ah, yes, the suburbanites can't possibly endure a minute lost in an extra inner city stop or transfer, while they can patiently ride through every twisty loop and turn as the bus route winds through their community just so they can be dropped off metres from their driveway (where their car is waiting).

The reason why the transit system lacks maturity and urbanity in this city is that when you boil down the express bus-focused Transitway, what OC Transpo is running (and is good at) is a school bus set-up for government employees.

[p_xavier]

The reason why the transit system lacks maturity and urbanity in this city is that when you boil down the express bus-focused Transitway, what OC Transpo is running (and is good at) is a school bus set-up for government employees.


LOL, that's a good one, I'll remember it.

[lrt's friend]

Funny cliches, but it all boils down to service delivery. If maturity and urbanity means significantly longer travel times, I will take a pass. As I pointed out, one of the big selling points of the huge British Columbia plan, is improved service delivery including in many cases substantial reductions in travel times.

I have no objections to building the suggested extra stations. All I was pointing out was that there is a cost in travel times in doing this. I have also provided solutions to this problem that will allow extra stations without degrading travel times.

[lrt's friend]

Actually this system is very fast. I would have hated to be in the traffic that was traveling at least 4 times slower than the bus itself. And remember, the busses don't stop at every station. It would make the trip much longer if they did so. Along these routes the busses have their own routes, that stop only at assigned station, making the trip much quicker. So instead of stopping maybe 20 times along the route, you only stop 6 or 7 times. Remember, busses can pass other busses

This is from a discussion about Bogata Columbia's busway system. Incidently, the former mayor of Bogata had been interviewed on CBC radio last fall explaining how they consciously decided to build a city for people instead of cars. Land that had been designated for expressways was converted into busways, bikeways and parks. They chose busways over LRT because of lower implementation costs.

[Dado]

Interesting discussion. I think we have to distinguish between 80/90 series routes and express routes to figure this one out.

With respect to 80/90 series routes, I can't see any way short of adding in way too many extra stations that light rail would be slower. Boarding/alighting times are better with trains and acceleration and deceleration is better too (heck, the Talent beats an artic for acceleration). The bus just does not have any advantages under these conditions.

For express buses, it gets more complicated. In the downtown and its approaches (say, Tunney's Pasture to Hurdman, the section over which all buses stop at pretty much every stop, other than maybe Lees), one would expect the train to be faster than a bus for the same reasons as above. However, outside that section, where express buses seldom stop (though some do at Westboro and Lincoln Fields!), the delays from extra stopping on a train will start to add up, and at some point those delays will exceed the downtown time savings. Where that point is is the interesting question. I'm pretty sure it is within the Greenbelt. Blair seems like a reasonable guess in the east end but for the others, I wouldn't like to say. Might be Lincoln Fields but it might also be Baseline/Bayshore in the west end. The Southeast is more difficult still because of the high number of buses that leave the Transitway inside the Greenbelt (i.e. pretty much all of them) and the complicating question of which route into downtown (via Hurdman or via Bayview?) is taken and where any particular individual is going.

For people inside the Greenbelt, or those who take a 90-series anywhere, this is a no-brainer. The 90-series are plodding and highly unpredictable. For people outside the Greenbelt taking express buses, some form of express/commuter train with fewer stops inside the Greenbelt would be better.

The interesting question as far as I'm concerned is how to serve areas outside the Greenbelt because inside it's fairly obvious. Continue with direct-to-downtown express buses? That's fast until downtown, where it congests. Express buses to the edge of the Greenbelt, or the edge of downtown? Fast, but now we have a transfer (probably more annoying in the morning than in the afternoon where the major annoyance is the disorganized mess of the current system, so direct in morning but requiring a train-bus transfer in the evening might be a good compromise). Frequent stop LRT? Not too fast and has a transfer. Infrequent stop LRT, probably DLRT? Has one-two transfers but good speed, maybe higher than express buses if the trains are allowed to power up to max speed (120 km/h) crossing the Greenbelt.