Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Mille Sabords]

I'm pretty sure that's an error, it should read that the underground stations will be open for business in 2017. Not the first time the media gets things mixed up.

[lrt's friend]

If Bob Charelli runs and manages to win as mayor in the next municipal election (If this were to happen) would he ever have a chance of breathing life into the old N-S LRT plan?

Bob Chiarelli was our true LRT promoter but his credibility was destroyed in the 2006 election as was the N-S plan. I doubt that Bob would get re-elected and I doubt that anybody would dare resurrect the N-S plan, even if that was our only affordable choice between building LRT or not.

[Rathgrith]

It is an error. They meant to write 2071.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Bob Chiarelli was our true LRT promoter but his credibility was destroyed in the 2006 election as was the N-S plan. I doubt that Bob would get re-elected and I doubt that anybody would dare resurrect the N-S plan, even if that was our only affordable choice between building LRT or not.

That plan was a bit strange with a spur to the airport and to the middle of nowhere. It seemed like a bizarre place to start when other areas - like Orleans and Kanata had greater immediate need. Turns out none of those places have the ridership to justify rail... Maybe LRT simply isn't what Ottawa needs now.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

That plan was a bit strange with a spur to the airport and to the middle of nowhere. It seemed like a bizarre place to start when other areas - like Orleans and Kanata had greater immediate need. Turns out none of those places have the ridership to justify rail... Maybe LRT simply isn't what Ottawa needs now.

Well, the new plan does not call for LRT to Orleans or Kanata either, and with a much higher price tag, and what it does build mostly already exists.

[Beatrix]

I believe the thinking behind Chiarelli's plan was to help spur growth in the south end, while limiting sprawl in the west and east.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

I believe the thinking behind Chiarelli's plan was to help spur growth in the south end, while limiting sprawl in the west and east.

Maybe it was a communication failure, the plan might have succeeded with better PR? Still, the Ottawa airport doesn't seem to care much about public transit and the low ridership didn't seem to justify that spur. I also don't think people expected it to take so long to get going. The whole area would be developed before a train ever rolled down the track! The optics were poor, it looked like some developer was about to profit heavily from a city project. It was not justified in the public mind.

The Carling to city core idea seems to be the only sane plan out there. New ridership from Carling, less buses in the core.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Franky

That plan was a bit strange with a spur to the airport and to the middle of nowhere. It seemed like a bizarre place to start when other areas - like Orleans and Kanata had greater immediate need. Turns out none of those places have the ridership to justify rail... Maybe LRT simply isn't what Ottawa needs now.

The Leitrim->Barrhaven section was really not a great part of the costs - it was all greenfield with primarily at grade crossing in Barrhaven/RS

The airport had relatively low ridership projections (1800 per day); I think the NS LRT proposed 15 minute service. A direct link would have required tunneling under the runway, which would have increased the costs. It also would have not served the Leitrim community as well among other downsides (discussed in the EA)... I think it would have initially been a shuttle from a nearby station, then the spur would have been constructed later

Ridership projections for the line overall were one of the higher lines in North America

[Franky]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Ridership projections for the line overall were one of the higher lines in North America

How can this be with only a single track?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

I believe the thinking behind Chiarelli's plan was to help spur growth in the south end, while limiting sprawl in the west and east.

Yes, it was being used as a planning tool, and a new approach to building a community around transit instead of roads. Rapid transit was extended to Orleans and Kanata at about the same stage of their development. The only difference; it was rapid transit of the 1960s, which was the Queensway. As it stands, we have decided not to build LRT or a Queensway south, which means that we want to encourage sprawl further and further to the east and west.

As we have seen, we cannot afford to build LRT to Orleans or Kanata in the next 25 years, but LRT to the south is affordable today. Would that alone not tell us that development should be encouraged southward?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As we have seen, we cannot afford to build LRT to Orleans or Kanata in the next 25 years, but LRT to the south is affordable today. Would that alone not tell us that development should be encouraged southward?

It was actually proven that the South is not more affordable, it never was. Ridership is much much lower for that branch than any Orleans or Kanata branch would ever be.

The problem was not building rail at the first, because of people with no vision, the same that said bus were good enough for good old small Ottawa, and the same that are afraid of building more than 5 storeys high.

[lrt's friend]

The Carling to city core idea seems to be the only sane plan out there. New ridership from Carling, less buses in the core.

Although I like the Carling route in many respects, we cannot afford to build it out far enough to reach a high growth area, Kanata. This is when you really start achieving ridership growth.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Franky

How can this be with only a single track?

I mean the NS line as a whole had high ridership projections, comparing favourably with larger light rail systems that have multiple lines

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, it was being used as a planning tool, and a new approach to building a community around transit instead of roads. Rapid transit was extended to Orleans and Kanata at about the same stage of their development. The only difference; it was rapid transit of the 1960s, which was the Queensway. As it stands, we have decided not to build LRT or a Queensway south, which means that we want to encourage sprawl further and further to the east and west.

As we have seen, we cannot afford to build LRT to Orleans or Kanata in the next 25 years, but LRT to the south is affordable today. Would that alone not tell us that development should be encouraged southward?

Using public transit as a planning tool, hmmm... It seems hard enough to get people to use it, adding a layer of difficulty to it seems unlikely to work. Isn't it better to get people on sustainable transit (since Orleans and Kanata already exists) rather than letting them commute by car or diesel bus?

I bet the plan would have been easier to sell if the most southern spurs were dotted lines and the N-S line ended inside the greenbelt. As soon as the buildings go up, they could have "realized" that the "extension" is needed.

Adding a "southern spur" (still inside the greenbelt) to the Carling Ave. plan would work too.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It was actually proven that the South is not more affordable, it never was. Ridership is much much lower for that branch than any Orleans or Kanata branch would ever be.

The problem was not building rail at the first, because of people with no vision, the same that said bus were good enough for good old small Ottawa, and the same that are afraid of building more than 5 storeys high.

And here lies the problem. You are not facing the realities of Ottawa. You want to transfer a plan that works for the older denser parts of much larger Toronto or Montreal and wonder why it won't work here. The cities are different. Ottawa is mostly a very young city, mostly post-war suburbia. We cannot transform that except in the long term. We can't cry over what was done in the past. We need to embrace past development and work with it the best way we can and try to do better in the future.

And when we come up with a plan that specifically designed to increase future suburban density, you object to it.

On affordability, we first must be able to fund the capital infrastructure. If we can't afford to build LRT to Kanata or Orleans, we can't afford it. It doesn't matter how much traffic there is. We had the N-S project fully funded. It was going to serve a future need. It was going to direct development southward where we can afford to build rapid transit. It was going attract new ridership in an area not presently well served by transit.

Building LRT halfway to Orleans and halfway to Kanata accomplishes virtually nothing.

I also say that Ottawa has been very well served by its Transitways. We have accomplished a lot with them. Per capita transit ridership almost matches Toronto and Montreal, which is an incredible feat for a much smaller city. We were not in a position to build LRT like Calgary or Edmonton did. You have to remember that both of those projects were started during the midst of the 1970s oil boom. That kind of money was not available in Ontario. Furthermore, we have seen that Edmonton's project stalled for a generation partly because of the cost of the downtown tunnel.

If we want rapid transit to be a success, and if we want to justify the capital cost, it needs to attract a lot of new riders and it has to improve service. Montreal did not extend the subway to Laval because it would lower the cost per rider. It extended the subway to attract new riders and to speed up service. I am sure that other future Montreal projects have similar motivation.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Franky

Using public transit as a planning tool, hmmm... It seems hard enough to get people to use it, adding a layer of difficulty to it seems unlikely to work. Isn't it better to get people on sustainable transit (since Orleans and Kanata already exists) rather than letting them commute by car or diesel bus?

I bet the plan would have been easier to sell if the most southern spurs were dotted lines and the N-S line ended inside the greenbelt. As soon as the buildings go up, they could have "realized" that the "extension" is needed.

Adding a "southern spur" (still inside the greenbelt) to the Carling Ave. plan would work too.

Part of the problem with new suburban development is that it is designed around the car and it becomes very difficult to introduce transit after the fact because the community isn't designed to accommodate it. Additionally, people become entrenched in their habits, so, if they move into the community and need to use a car initially, they are likely to continue to use their car even after transit is introduced. The hope then, is that by introducing higher order transit from the start, the design of the community will reflect that, and the travel patterns of those who move into it would also reflect that.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Franky

Using public transit as a planning tool, hmmm... It seems hard enough to get people to use it, adding a layer of difficulty to it seems unlikely to work. Isn't it better to get people on sustainable transit (since Orleans and Kanata already exists) rather than letting them commute by car or diesel bus?

I bet the plan would have been easier to sell if the most southern spurs were dotted lines and the N-S line ended inside the greenbelt. As soon as the buildings go up, they could have "realized" that the "extension" is needed.

Adding a "southern spur" (still inside the greenbelt) to the Carling Ave. plan would work too.

Are you kidding me? Your transportation network is one of your main controllers on what gets built where. When Orleans was first being built, the developers would advertise, only so many minutes to downtown (because of the Queensway). This was a major consideration for many people buying there in the early days. Orleans and Kanata would have never developed the way they have without the Queensway. Hopefully, we are now ready to move forward and instead of building Queensways, we will build rapid transit instead.

On 'sustainable' transit, well, those diesel buses will still be running to Kanata and Orleans, likely for the rest of my lifetime.

You talk about sustainable transit to the suburbs and then you say that such transit should be restricted to inside the Greenbelt. Does that really make sense? Yet, the vast majority of our growth will be outside the Greenbelt. There is a bit of a disconnect there. Are you saying, it would be better to build more Queensways to outside the Greenbelt?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And when we come up with a plan that specifically designed to increase future suburban density, you object to it.

And here lies the truth, the city doesn't need another suburb planned by a builder. I'm against developping outside the Greenbelt, as the official plan. I'm also against NIMBYism in centretown, OMG, a tall building. There was a great article on how much we pay for sprawling that much. Sure, not everybody wants to live in a condo, but I'd love to live in a 75 storey high tower if I had the opportunity.

On affordability, we first must be able to fund the capital infrastructure. If we can't afford to build LRT to Kanata or Orleans, we can't afford it. It doesn't matter how much traffic there is. We had the N-S project fully funded. It was going to serve a future need. It was going to direct development southward where we can afford to build rapid transit. It was going attract new ridership in an area not presently well served by transit.

Again, we can afford it, Clive and Christine's plan was more than anything Delcan ever accomplished. It's all about choices, and Delcan didn't want to do more studies so that's the half ass plan you get.

Building LRT halfway to Orleans and halfway to Kanata accomplishes virtually nothing.

For the difference that separates them, no, it doesn't do much.

I also say that Ottawa has been very well served by its Transitways. We have accomplished a lot with them. Per capita transit ridership almost matches Toronto and Montreal, which is an incredible feat for a much smaller city. We were not in a position to build LRT like Calgary or Edmonton did. You have to remember that both of those projects were started during the midst of the 1970s oil boom. That kind of money was not available in Ontario. Furthermore, we have seen that Edmonton's project stalled for a generation partly because of the cost of the downtown tunnel.

Ottawa wouldn't have a tunnel, like Calgary, the ridership at the time was too low, which isn't the case for both cities now. It was 30 years ago, the city evolved in that timeframe.

If we want rapid transit to be a success, and if we want to justify the capital cost, it needs to attract a lot of new riders and it has to improve service. Montreal did not extend the subway to Laval because it would lower the cost per rider. It extended the subway to attract new riders and to speed up service. I am sure that other future Montreal projects have similar motivation.

Totally agree, but the original N-S didn't attract a lot of new riders, and it cost a fortune to run. Just for a comparison, the Laval subway extentions has added ridership of 65000 daily (it was planned at 45000), so 10 times as more as the planned N-S line, for the same cost. And as a bonus, they still saved on operating costs compared to buses (albeit the cost was transferred to the STM, which is another juridiction issue).

[Franky]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Are you kidding me? Your transportation network is one of your main controllers on what gets built where. When Orleans was first being built, the developers would advertise, only so many minutes to downtown (because of the Queensway). This was a major consideration for many people buying there in the early days. Orleans and Kanata would have never developed the way they have without the Queensway. Hopefully, we are now ready to move forward and instead of building Queensways, we will build rapid transit instead.

On 'sustainable' transit, well, those diesel buses will still be running to Kanata and Orleans, likely for the rest of my lifetime.

You talk about sustainable transit to the suburbs and then you say that such transit should be restricted to inside the Greenbelt. Does that really make sense? Yet, the vast majority of our growth will be outside the Greenbelt. There is a bit of a disconnect there. Are you saying, it would be better to build more Queensways to outside the Greenbelt?

I wrote "transit" not "transportation". I agree with you about roads. I don't know if the evidence is there for transit.

I wrote that the plan should be sold or promoted (to the south at least) as inside the greenbelt until development actually reaches some sort of credible numbers, then extend it to the suburban development.

Look at the other thread for solutions. LRT doesn't seem to help us. I would like to see automated(preferably), electric transit to all four (satellite) corners of Ottawa. I think $5 Billion dollars should be more than enough to do it, but not with LRT and a tunnel (obviously).

[Franky]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Part of the problem with new suburban development is that it is designed around the car and it becomes very difficult to introduce transit after the fact because the community isn't designed to accommodate it. Additionally, people become entrenched in their habits, so, if they move into the community and need to use a car initially, they are likely to continue to use their car even after transit is introduced. The hope then, is that by introducing higher order transit from the start, the design of the community will reflect that, and the travel patterns of those who move into it would also reflect that.

If this is true, the transit strike will cause irreparable damage. I think people look at the suburbs, try the drive to work on a Sunday, buy the house and realize traffic is impossible (or becomes impossible), or gas prices rise and they look for alternatives. I know there are some who buy a suburban house because of transit, but I bet they are a minority, transit users would choose a house in a more urban setting.