The future of Ottawa's Transit

[Cre47]

Can we have the list of councilors that are in favor of option 4. From what I think, those who I think are in favor includes Bedard, Legendre, Hume, McRae, Deans, Holmes, Cullen, O'Brien, Doucet (although I've seen he wants to present a plan), Monette, Thompson and Feltmate. That makes it 12-12 at least. Those I know who are against are Harder, Hunter, Wilkinson, Leadman and Bellemare.

The suburban councillors better not screw this up once again

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Can we have the list of councilors that are in favor of option 4. From what I think, those who I think are in favor includes Bedard, Legendre, Hume, McRae, Deans, Holmes, Cullen, O'Brien, Doucet (although I've seen he wants to present a plan), Monette, Thompson and Feltmate. That makes it 12-12 at least. Those I know who are against are Harder, Hunter, Wilkinson, Leadman and Bellemare.

Looking through the list of councilors:

Desroches - Gloucester-South - will most likely be a nay since his ward has got nothing but screwed in this and the NSLRT mess. He really can't sell anything else at the door.

Jellet - Cumberland - was in favour of option 3 - so he is in favour of something so I would think he would probably hold his nose vote in favour of option 4. He was a flip vote on the NSLRT.

Bloess - Innes - ????

Brooks - Rideau-Goulbourn - ???? No idea but I imagine this is a tough sell way out there.

Chiarelli - College - ????

El-Chantiry - West Carleton-March - ???? Another way out ward...hard sell really

Qadri - Stittsville-Kanata West - ?????


Leadman and Bellemare are the big disappointments if they vote against, seeing as this thing goes through their wards. Understandably for the suburban councilors it can be a hard sell at the door $4 billion for something only adds transfers to people in their wards.

Also you just never know when Cullen decides to go off on one of his little....too many expensive changes could cause him to jump...Same as last time.

The suburban councillors better not screw this up once again

When I see quotes like this I recall back to pre-amalgamation discussion when one of the big worries in the outlying areas was that city council be designed in a way that the interests of the outer areas were not trumped by the interests of areas more central. I believe the rural councilors even got extra votes in the first term, if I am not mistaken. It was certainly considered.

So if the suburban councilors do "screw this up", I won't be happy about another rail plan going down the tube :-( but at the same time the suburban interests were largely left out of this plan so going back to pre-amalgamation worries, I would say things would have worked exactly as designed. If everyones interests are not looked after equally, things won't pass. Really if you consider those "just inside the greenbelt" areas of this city, suburban interests carry a huge political weight.

[AuxTown]

So if the suburban councilors do "screw this up", I won't be happy about another rail plan going down the tube :-( but at the same time the suburban interests were largely left out of this plan so going back to pre-amalgamation worries, I would say things would have worked exactly as designed. If everyones interests are not looked after equally, things won't pass. Really if you consider those "just inside the greenbelt" areas of this city, suburban interests carry a huge political weight.

If by "being left out of this plan" you mean being left DT ten years from now on a transitway running at 150% with multiple downtown streets overrun with buses (likely Wellington, Queen, Laurier) then you're right. A VERY significant proportion of suburbanites work downtown and a large proportion of them use transit to get there so I don't see how building a transit system from the centre out leaves anyone at a loss. This is exactly the debate that will occur in council chambers when it comes time to vote and I wonder how many councillors will be able to see the connection between their ward and the heart (and lungs, liver, kidney, brain) of Ottawa. How many councillors take transit to work anyway (other than for photo opportunities)?

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

How many councillors take transit to work anyway (other than for photo opportunities)?

Exactly!

[the capital urbanite]

It's quite clear that a vote against option 4 is a vote to continue BRT in Ottawa. What does a "no" vote mean? ...I think council should have a clear plan as to what happens under such a situation.

It would be ludicrous to "go back to the drawing board" at this point because there is no appetite for a third round. Put the issue to bed and look at it again in 10-15 years.

In the meantime, we'll have to re-jig the current BRT system to increase efficiency downtown.

[lrt's friend]

The big problem is that instead of fixing the weaknesses of the former project and moving forward as quickly as possible, we are essentially throwing out most of the previous work (and we see the pressure being exerted to throw out ALL the previous work). This kind of extreme reaction to do things completely differently invites criticism as we are now seeing in the Ottawa Citizen again today.

Furthermore, it may appear that the suburbanites are not benefiting from Option 4 but that is not true. Many Transitway improvements are included. It is those who live inside the Greenbelt but not downtown or along the Transitway corridors, who see little or no benefit.

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Those I know who are against are Harder, Hunter, Wilkinson, Leadman and Bellemare.

He has an opinion on something.? Wonders never cease.

[the capital urbanite]

...more misinformed ramblings from the editor


The people speak on rail

The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Environment Minister John Baird has told the City of Ottawa that if it wants federal money for the new $4-billion light-rail project, it needs to show there will be a significant increase in ridership with the new system.

Fair enough. So how does the city achieve that uplift? Listen to the riders. After all, they will be the ones using the trains. It's not for the politicians, though a plan that goes in all three directions looks more like a political compromise than a transit system.

So what do commuters want? Well, people in Orléans at a consultation this week would like, say, a train. They're not keen on adding a transfer to their trip by having to change from the Orléans bus to the downtown train at Blair Road. Better to take the 90-series buses that go from the 'burbs to the core. City councillors would know this if more than a few of them took the bus every day to work to experience the limited joy of the February transfer in the spartan stations they provide the peasantry.

No, on light rail we need more practicality and less politics. Every councillor these days has his or her own plan. Next stop, chaos.

We need fewer stunts such as when staff returned a report saying that the public strongly supported a tunnel when all four options didn't contain a surface-rail alternative. Ah, unanimous support for a tunnel. Of course.

So listen and learn at these consultations and transfer that knowledge into a rail system people will use.


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[the capital urbanite]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The big problem is that instead of fixing the weaknesses of the former project and moving forward as quickly as possible, we are essentially throwing out most of the previous work (and we see the pressure being exerted to throw out ALL the previous work). This kind of extreme reaction to do things completely differently invites criticism as we are now seeing in the Ottawa Citizen again today.

Furthermore, it may appear that the suburbanites are not benefiting from Option 4 but that is not true. Many Transitway improvements are included. It is those who live inside the Greenbelt but not downtown or along the Transitway corridors, who see little or no benefit.

...I disagree...we aren't throwing away anything. All the previous work has been incorporated into the current network concept. If we had thrown it away we wouldn't even be close to a decision.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

How many councillors take transit to work anyway (other than for photo opportunities)?

I know Bloess takes the bus to work. I've seen him and talked to him while he was riding. From what I know of him he most likely support the plan.

I think the councillors should understand that any and all aspirations for light rail to the suburbs can start (and has to start) from something like Option 4, and that Option 4 has to begin with a downtown tunnel.

[lrt's friend]

...I disagree...we aren't throwing away anything. All the previous work has been incorporated into the current network concept. If we had thrown it away we wouldn't even be close to a decision.

Marianne Wilkinson wants to throw it all away and I won't be surprised if other councillors end up supporting a similar vision.

Let's face it. The popularity contest will delay any significant action in the south for at least 20 years. Do Environmental Assessments expire?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Marianne Wilkinson wants to throw it all away and I won't be surprised if other councillors end up supporting a similar vision.

Let's face it. The popularity contest will delay any significant action in the south for at least 20 years. Do Environmental Assessments expire?

That I agree, but I'm pretty sure there are strict TMP dates to be followed.

And yes EAs expire, that's why updating often happens. (I don't know how long they last tho).

[lrt's friend]

That I agree, but I'm pretty sure there are strict TMP dates to be followed.

And yes EAs expire, that's why updating often happens. (I don't know how long they last tho).

Wow, we actually agree on something.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wow, we actually agree on something.

That may be the only thing. Sorry, I'm not fond of emotion filled discussions and usually don't get along well with people that do. It's nothing personal, it's just I can't stand it. You still haven't overcomed the fact that the previous plan was cancelled for specific reasons. Face it, it wasn't a PR issue.

Deez told you that the northern Transitway would still be used more than LRT elsewhere, and you write on the Ottawa Talks webpage like it wasn't the case. If there's anything, you're part of the reason why this city doesn't have an efficient LRT sytem.

My favorite motto: it's not because you wish for something that it's actually true.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by clynnog

He has an opinion on something.? Wonders never cease.

[Mille Sabords]

The "extra transfer" objection is a non-issue if the metro has the type of frequency that lets you plan to be at Blair or Lincoln Fields or Baseline stations at the time you need to catch your suburban BRT ride. If you know there's a metro every 2 minutes and you know your transfer time, then what's the problem? Riders will get sharp and if the transfer stations are configured properly and include some retail and services, then those stations will become part of the journey (coffee, newspapers, drycleaning, video (if they still exist then), etc.)

But, the city has to sell this aspect properly.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

The "extra transfer" objection is a non-issue if the metro has the type of frequency that lets you plan to be at Blair or Lincoln Fields or Baseline stations at the time you need to catch your suburban BRT ride. If you know there's a metro every 2 minutes and you know your transfer time, then what's the problem? Riders will get sharp and if the transfer stations are configured properly and include some retail and services, then those stations will become part of the journey (coffee, newspapers, drycleaning, video (if they still exist then), etc.)

But, the city has to sell this aspect properly.

The problem is that it is not the frequency of the train or even the BRT that is important. It is the frequency of the crappy local bus that causes the problems. It is the worst frequency that you are always at the mercy of not the best frequency.

The second problem is that many people now drive to park and rides to avoid the crappy local bus service (car has infinite frequency minus the walk to it). The problem is Blair and Baseline don't have sufficiently sized park and rides for the extra load....and even if they were to somehow get built (which they won't) the highways lack the capacity for the extra cars.

Perhaps if the city could promise local bus service at no worse than 15 minute frequencies all day they might begin to get more support. Certainly they will need all day express buses to Blair and Baseline.

It is a really tough sell to say "yes you have a direct bus downtown town now that is half decent but we are going to get rid of that and make you transfer in -25 degrees" They have to somehow make it better than that.

=================================================

One thing I think the city planners could do about this is just come out with a plan 5 as follows:

Just draw the lines on the map out to Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven. Train all the way with no BRT construction at all. Then just say we are building from downtown outwards as money becomes available - which is entirely reasonable and what was going to happen anyway.

There done train to the suburbs! Obviously a train in the 'bubs does no good without a train downtown so downtown will be built first and they will work their way out. Then they can say they listened to the people and it's a plan for everyone,. blah blah blah....

[Deez]

^ That's why the city now has slide that says "Possible Future Network" with all red lines. But of course nobody pays attention to that. Everybody automatically assumes that Option 4 is the ultimate network and that Orleans will never see rail service.

Here's some interesting public feedback: half the people that filled out feedback forms at the open house were for option 4, and half were against it. All but 2 of the naysayers pointed out (without any provocation) that Counc. Wilkinson's plan "made more sense".

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Deez

^ That's why the city now has slide that says "Possible Future Network" with all red lines. But of course nobody pays attention to that. Everybody automatically assumes that Option 4 is the ultimate network and that Orleans will never see rail service.

Here's some interesting public feedback: half the people that filled out feedback forms at the open house were for option 4, and half were against it. All but 2 of the naysayers pointed out (without any provocation) that Counc. Wilkinson's plan "made more sense".

The problem with possible future network and the timespan they are talking about (which is WAY too long imho) is that it translates into "not in my lifetime if ever" for most people. They need to get the possible and even the future out of there make it the plan...period.

I am certainly not a councilor Wilkinson fan but it did get me thinking about a couple points:

Is there much rational to do anything with the present O-train. The rolling stock is fairly young, and it still had capacity to spare. The only advantage is the extension.

Would it not make more sense to do the extension joined into the south Transitway linking into the Hurdman and leave the O-train exactly as it. More of the city would have a train near them? (particularly given that Riverside has some serious high rises)

The other thing is that it makes very little sense to extend the train to the middle of a field. Either they should go to Riverside South or forget it all together. You can build a park and ride and a transfer station anywhere. The second problem is that they end up with an airport spur instead of an airport pass-through station or terminal. This is will add complication to the route structure. Just have one track go to the airport and put the park and ride/transfer station down closer to Hunt Club/South keys.

They made the same mistake in Orleans with the Trim park and ride. They could have just as easily expropriated the land north of the Orleans Park and Ride and handled the extra parking there with plenty of space to spare. Instead now, when and if they build a train or a even a BRT, they have kilometers of extra infrastructure to build Further to that, when they first built the Trim lot they had to practically beg people to use it. They liked Orleans better since there were more frequent bus. Many still do.

[AuxTown]

Wilkinson's LRT Plan:



You would think a woman with such tunnel-vision would see the potential benefits of building a DT tunnel and expanding out from there!

As for the NS route, I completely agree. The train needs to go to the airport (which I would prefer) or Riverside South (or both). Building billion-dollar trains to nowhere is just asking to become the transit laughing stock of Canada. I don't care how many Riverside South residents cross their hearts and hope to die that they will drive to the park-and-ride to take the train, it's just not a risk worth taking.