The future of Ottawa's Transit

[MalcolmTucker]

I propose that all Transitway and some express routes from the west be maintained to downtown.

Ain't gonna happen. Especially so since there will be no path for the buses east of Turney's without going back to surface streets if my memory serves. People will complain for a day or two then get used to it.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Ain't gonna happen. Especially so since there will be no path for the buses east of Turney's without going back to surface streets if my memory serves. People will complain for a day or two then get used to it.

They could use Scott Street with on/off restrictions to keep them moving.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

With all the LRT upgrades, one thing that will be interesting to design is a potential future bus route network. I already have a lot of ideas. In Phase 1 (up to Tunney's Pasture), I propose that all Transitway and some express routes from the west be maintained to downtown. Orleans local routes would all be extended to Blair (until the LRT reaches Orleans) at that time.

In Phase 2, all Kanata local routes would meet the LRT at Bayshore (as I propose the Bayshore section be constructed) and Barrhaven locals would meet the LRT at Baseline (there would be no Transitway-dedicated bus routes) until the LRT is extended into those suburbs.

Inside the Greenbelt, it isn't a great deal of change from the proposed September design (except for Transitway sections being lost). In some cases, it is a simple renumbering (routes within the Greenbelt would almost always have 1 or 2-digit numbers).

Isn't it going to be awfully expensive to extend all local Orleans routes to Blair during off-peak hours? Likewise to later extend all Kanata local routes to Bayshore. Either, we maintain similar routes as today and make people transfer twice to get downtown or we will have to have another round of route optimization to reduce service further to compensate for extending suburban routes with low ridership. More routes with no or very limited service at night and on weekends. Take your pick.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't it going to be awfully expensive to extend all local Orleans routes to Blair during off-peak hours? Likewise to later extend all Kanata local routes to Bayshore. Either, we maintain similar routes as today and make people transfer twice to get downtown or we will have to have another round of route optimization to reduce service further to compensate for extending suburban routes with low ridership. More routes with no or very limited service at night and on weekends. Take your pick.

There would be no 95s to Orleans (or 96s to Kanata in the future phase) though, so the cost of that is moved onto local routes. The other option forces passengers to transfer twice, and that would not be popular.

Once LRT is extended to the suburbs, they get shortened back.

[lrt's friend]

Once LRT is extended to the suburbs, they get shortened back.

And when might that be? The year 2300?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And when might that be? The year 2300?

You're optimistic!

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

...In Phase 2, all Kanata local routes would meet the LRT at Bayshore (as I propose the Bayshore section be constructed) and Barrhaven locals would meet the LRT at Baseline (there would be no Transitway-dedicated bus routes) until the LRT is extended into those suburbs....

I would suggest that the train be extended to Moodie, from Bayshore, to capture the 10,000-15,000 at the DND campus (fromerly Nortel campus) on Moodie. There is also more space there to design a proper bus-LRT transfer facility.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I would suggest that the train be extended to Moodie, from Bayshore, to capture the 10,000-15,000 at the DND campus (fromerly Nortel campus) on Moodie. There is also more space there to design a proper bus-LRT transfer facility.

Might be workable, but there would be virtually zero ridership potential on evenings and weekends there except for transfers, which is bad for a terminal station.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Might be workable, but there would be virtually zero ridership potential on evenings and weekends there except for transfers, which is bad for a terminal station.

Yes, but if all the ridership from Kanata/Stittsville that formerly took the 96 will be terminating there it will still have significant ridership.

[Dado]

What you do is make the mega transfer station at Nortel and handle peak period transfers there, or even all daytime weekday transfers. For the rest of the time, when huge volumes of passengers are not an issue, the line just terminates at Bayshore and the buses from Kanata travel a little bit further.

[MalcolmTucker]

The last time you want to add extra route time is on weekends either increasing costs or reducing frequency, plus it makes the system harder to navigate. From the user's perspective what would it add?

Plus, with a bit of effort politically one could probably encroach on the greenbelt a bit to build a model TOD village or something similar to turn a problem of little afterhour activity into an opprotunity.

All that if one can justify making the one stop extension in the first place, which could be helped if the only land for a second carhouse is beyond Bayshore.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The last time you want to add extra route time is on weekends either increasing costs or reducing frequency, plus it makes the system harder to navigate. From the user's perspective what would it add?

Plus, with a bit of effort politically one could probably encroach on the greenbelt a bit to build a model TOD village or something similar to turn a problem of little afterhour activity into an opprotunity.

All that if one can justify making the one stop extension in the first place, which could be helped if the only land for a second carhouse is beyond Bayshore.

I was thinking Pinecrest Garage would be the most suitable place, since there would be a surplus of buses making it possible to decommission a bus garage and it is directly above the recommended alignment making it easily reachable from the west (and a short deadhead to go eastbound).

[Kitchissippi]

In this news article, NCC's Mme Lemay was cited with saying:

"Those parkways had an original purpose. Is it still the purpose? Should it be different?" she said. "The car was to go uninterrupted in order to get a scenic view. If you take Queen Elizabeth Driveway or Colonel By Drive, I'm not sure that's exactly what's happening right now. Do we want to make better use of them? Is there a different approach? Should there be a priority to other modes of transportation? These are all good discussions.

"There are a lot of things you can do with the parkways. But in my opinion it will be a bigger bang for the buck if we can all be aiming for the same goal. It sounds like basic 101, but we haven't done it."

Which got me thinking that much of the Queen Elizabeth Driveway would make an excellent way to connect a surface tramway along Carling with the Rideau/Montreal Road corridor, at the same time provide better transit service to Lansdowne Park. Prince of Wales drive could terminate at Preston, and the Driveway shortened from the NAC to Pretoria Bridge. Between Preston and Elgin would be an exclusive tramway and expanded cycling and walking paths. The tram would have LRT/O-Train connections at Bayshore, Lincoln Fields, Carling, Rideau and Blair, as it plies Richmond-Carling-former QED-Elgin-Rideau-Montreal Road-Blair. The central portion could look like this:

[OttawaSteve]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Which got me thinking that much of the Queen Elizabeth Driveway would make an excellent way to connect a surface tramway along Carling with the Rideau/Montreal Road corridor, at the same time provide better transit service to Lansdowne Park. Prince of Wales drive could terminate at Preston, and the Driveway shortened from the NAC to Pretoria Bridge. Between Preston and Elgin would be an exclusive tramway and expanded cycling and walking paths. The tram would have LRT/O-Train connections at Bayshore, Lincoln Fields, Carling, Rideau and Blair, as it plies Richmond-Carling-former QED-Elgin-Rideau-Montreal Road-Blair. The central portion could look like this:

Yeah.

I'd include the following stops:

- Carling O-Train
- possibly Rochester/Booth (for the future redevelopment of the Booth St. complex)
- Bronson (with a new pedestrian bridge over the canal on the west side of Bronson, serving the future Carleton north campus and providing a direct, safe pedestrian link between Carleton and the Glebe)
- Bank - Lansdowne Park
- Fifth-Clegg
- Pretoria Bridge
- Gladstone
- Somerset
- Confederation Park
- Rideau LRT

How would the ROW on Elgin work?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by OttawaSteve

Yeah.

I'd include the following stops:

- Carling O-Train
- possibly Rochester/Booth (for the future redevelopment of the Booth St. complex)
- Bronson (with a new pedestrian bridge over the canal on the west side of Bronson, serving the future Carleton north campus and providing a direct, safe pedestrian link between Carleton and the Glebe)
- Bank - Lansdowne Park
- Fifth-Clegg
- Pretoria Bridge
- Gladstone
- Somerset
- Confederation Park
- Rideau LRT

How would the ROW on Elgin work?

A couple of parking garages could be built to replace all the street parking on Elgin. I know the Museum of Nature has future plans for underground parking between Elgin and its building, and a similar scheme could be done a few blocks north, maybe underneath Minto Park. This would create an opportunity to turn Elgin into a pedestrian-priority street with super wide sidewalks and tram tracks down the centre. Turning Metcalfe street back into a two-way street would also redistribute traffic in this area, and the remaining portion of the Driveway an alternate scenic tourist approach to downtown from the east-bound Queensway.

The tricky part is downtown and working around the overloaded Plaza Bridge/War memorial area and Rideau Sussex intersection. In a fantasy world, the Rideau station would be configured as a transfer (union ) station off the bat so that the tram would enter a tunnel on Elgin north of Lisgar (or Laurier), dovetail with the LRT somehow, and surface on Rideau east of King Edward, like this:

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A couple of parking garages could be built to replace all the street parking on Elgin. I know the Museum of Nature has future plans for underground parking between Elgin and its building, and a similar scheme could be done a few blocks north, maybe underneath Minto Park. This would create an opportunity to turn Elgin into a pedestrian-priority street with super wide sidewalks and tram tracks down the centre. Turning Metcalfe street back into a two-way street would also redistribute traffic in this area, and the remaining portion of the Driveway an alternate scenic tourist approach to downtown from the east-bound Queensway.

The tricky part is downtown and working around the overloaded Plaza Bridge/War memorial area and Rideau Sussex intersection. In a fantasy world, the Rideau station would be configured as a transfer (union ) station off the bat so that the tram would enter a tunnel on Elgin north of Lisgar (or Laurier), dovetail with the LRT somehow, and surface on Rideau east of King Edward, like this:

Couldn't the Mackenzie King Bridge be used for that to maintain transit on that corridor? Bring it around and back to the surface in the divider then back into a tunnel just before Waller (or a surface alignment through the area). Stations would be on the bridge and beneath Waller/Besserer. It would also be much cheaper as it avoids the bedrock beneath the Rideau Centre.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Couldn't the Mackenzie King Bridge be used for that to maintain transit on that corridor? Bring it around and back to the surface in the divider then back into a tunnel just before Waller (or a surface alignment through the area). Stations would be on the bridge and beneath Waller/Besserer. It would also be much cheaper as it avoids the bedrock beneath the Rideau Centre.

I thought of that, but it would have no direct transfer with the LRT downtown.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think you could never get it built unless it hit downtown a little further to the west, which would also widen the catchment area quite a bit. Perhaps down Bank St?

Since most projects are evaluated in $ per rider, a route that would garner higher ridership should be a key goal rather than one with a pretty route. That being said, who knows which route is best, it would need a definition study for sure, with some key requirements, like the line going from Bayshore --> Carling --> Lansdowne Park --> Somewhere in eastern downtown with a somewhat convenient transfer to either Rideau or the downtown east stations.

[OttawaSteve]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I think you could never get it built unless it hit downtown a little further to the west, which would also widen the catchment area quite a bit. Perhaps down Bank St?

Since most projects are evaluated in $ per rider, a route that would garner higher ridership should be a key goal rather than one with a pretty route.

Moving it further west doesn't widen the catchment area... it just moves it further west.

A stop at Bronson would serve the future Carleton University north campus. A stop at Bank would serve the redeveloped Lansdowne Park. Stops at Fifth/Clegg and Pretoria Bridge would serve St. Paul's University and proposed redevelopment on Main. Stops on Elgin would serve the developing northeast Centretown area (Tribeca, 150 Elgin, etc.)

That being said, ideally we would see this route complemented by a line on Bank Street between downtown and Billings.

[MalcolmTucker]

Unless the line comes with a couple new pedestrian bridges over the canal most definetely a route further west has higher catchment further out. As for in downtwon, more central is better if the goal is getting the maximum number of people to using it.