The future of Ottawa's Transit

[miketoronto]

How do you guys feel about certain areas not having transit service during the late evenings and Sunday's.

Do you think Ottawa should follow Toronto and Montreal's lead, where 95% residents are within a walking distance of 24 hour service? As well as walking distance to service until at least midnight or 1am seven days a week?

These Sept service changes are really a slap in the face to transit service standards, which are a hallmark of Canadian transit networks.

Some could argue that is o.k. While others like myself could argue that these standards need to be improved and not chipped away at, like Ottawa has decided to do, in the name of saving money.

And on that note, one thing I find very weird is that some areas get service while others don't. So eastern Orleans gets service until midnight seven days a week. While western Orleans gets very limited service. Why is this, when they are almost identical subdivisions, etc?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In a way, it is not as strange as it appears. In most cases, the new 90 series routes run on corridors that are scheduled for eventual construction of rapid transit. This is the case with the 93, 94 and 99. The city is doing the right thing and building ridership on these corridors in advance of rapid transit. This is the same that is being done in Calgary in advance of construction of the southeast LRT line. The same thing was done with the western LRT line currently under construction. The only exception to this is the 98, which is really just an extension of the 97. In that case, it made no sense to turn 97s around at the south end of the Transitway, while having a heavily used local route doing the same thing with a little bit of overlap. It is more efficient to connect the 2 together, while saving passengers a transfer. Why not make use of the flexibility of BRT in a case like this?

Also when the 94 was first introduced, it was peak periods only. Then midday service was added, evening service, weekend service and now it is nearly a full-day route (just missing early service on Sunday and an extra late evening trip or two) with good ridership and good frequencies throughout most of the day (15 minutes). IMO that was one of the greatest success stories.

The 99 IMO should be extended downtown at more times of day, to eliminate the midday 97X trips that end at South Keys, even though 15 minute frequency would be quite generous (although it would become new service after 8 pm weekdays and on weekends as all 97s then go to the airport, rightfully IMO).

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

How do you guys feel about certain areas not having transit service during the late evenings and Sunday's.

Do you think Ottawa should follow Toronto and Montreal's lead, where 95% residents are within a walking distance of 24 hour service? As well as walking distance to service until at least midnight or 1am seven days a week?

These Sept service changes are really a slap in the face to transit service standards, which are a hallmark of Canadian transit networks.

Some could argue that is o.k. While others like myself could argue that these standards need to be improved and not chipped away at, like Ottawa has decided to do, in the name of saving money.

And on that note, one thing I find very weird is that some areas get service while others don't. So eastern Orleans gets service until midnight seven days a week. While western Orleans gets very limited service. Why is this, when they are almost identical subdivisions, etc?

While i think it would be great to have 24 hour service for 95% would it be used as it should be that would be my question.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by reidjr

While i think it would be great to have 24 hour service for 95% would it be used as it should be that would be my question.

Some of those mentioned on the map are technicalities, like the last trip at 12:05 instead of 11:40 or something like that. IMO, on Sundays, 11:00 pm should be the target time for the last trips on all-day routes (longer on core routes and where ridership warrants). 12:00 am should be the target Monday to Saturday.

Realistically, overnight service would only work right now on the Transitway, and perhaps to some degree on a few of the busiest routes on major roads.

[TransitZilla]

This could arguably be posted under roads, but I'll put it in the transit section since it should be a major improvement for buses heading back home from Scotiabank Place events.

From http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/...lity-of-life-and-create-jobs-1540973.htm

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - July 21, 2011) - The Ontario government is investing in a new on-ramp in Ottawa from Scotiabank Place to Highway 417 eastbound. This project will create jobs, improve traffic flow and facilitate increased use of public transit for visitors and Ottawa families.
The new ramp will support the on-going expansion of the high-occupancy vehicle network along Highway 417. The ramp will be designed to give OC Transpo buses priority access, with the intention to accommodate other high occupancy vehicles. This expansion will result in significant time savings for patrons of Scotiabank Place when exiting the parking lot.
"As an Ottawa Senators fan, I know first hand what this ramp means for the community," said Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure. "This investment by the provincial government will not only create valuable jobs locally but will also improve quality of life for transit users."
"The City of Ottawa is delighted to partner with the Province and the Ottawa Senators in this improvement to our transit system that will make it much easier for fans to get home after a Senators victory, added Jim Watson, Mayor of Ottawa. "This new ramp will also help us to encourage more people to take OC Transpo to events at Scotiabank Place and it helps us to be more efficient in providing public transit to our residents."
This project supports Building Together, Ontario's long-term infrastructure plan, to repair, rebuild and renew the province's roads and highways, bridges, public transit, schools and postsecondary institutions, hospitals and courthouses.
"The construction of this ramp meets head on one of our fans' key desires and that is for easier exiting following hockey games and events, noted Cyril Leeder, president, Senators Sports & Entertainment. "It is our priority to provide the best possible guest experience for our fans, each and every night. We want to thank the Province, OC Transpo and the City of Ottawa for their co-operation to date in helping us identify this issue and find a workable solution."
Through Building Together, the province expects to continue significant investments in public infrastructure over the next decade, and will begin by investing more than $35 billion over the next three years.
Facts about this announcement
- Building Together builds on the McGuinty Government's unprecedented infrastructure investments to date with investments of more than $35 billion over the next three years, to create and protect over 300,000 jobs as laid out in the 2011 Budget.
- Since 2003, the McGuinty government has created and supported 600,000 jobs and has invested $62 billion in infrastructure.
- The province is investing up to $500,000 towards the project, with estimated eligible costs of $750,000.

Also, http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Queens...ce/5137360/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

OTTAWA — The Ontario government has announced a $500,000 grant to help build a new Queensway on-ramp for buses leaving Scotiabank Place.

The city will pay the remaining $250,000 of the $750,000 project. The federal government declined to participate.

The eastbound ramp will provide direct access to the Queensway for buses that are often caught up in the massive congestion after hockey games and other events at the arena, said Liberal MPP Bob Chiarelli.

The ramp will be designed to give OC Transpo buses priority access but will also be open to high-occupancy vehicles. The expansion will result significant time-savings for hockey fans, he said.

“As an Ottawa Senators fan, I know firsthand what this ramp means for the community. This investment will not only create jobs in the area but will enhance quality of life,” Chiarelli said at a Thursday morning press conference at Scotiabank Place.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said the city will provide 100 park and ride spots at Scotiabank Place.

Senators President Cyril Leeder described the announcement as good for the community, adding that it will cut 15 minutes from the current 18 minutes it takes for buses to reach the Queensway. The team has wanted a bus on-ramp for 10 years, he said, but it only became possible after the Queensway was widened to reduce backups.

“This is a great news for our fans,” Leeder said.

Map:

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

This could arguably be posted under roads, but I'll put it in the transit section since it should be a major improvement for buses heading back home from Scotiabank Place events.

From http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/...lity-of-life-and-create-jobs-1540973.htm



Also, http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Queens...ce/5137360/story.html?cid=megadrop_story



Map:

Not sure if that is the best place for a Park and Ride, but that is definitely great news to see such a ramp built - huge time-saver after games. (Too bad it is virtually impossible to build for westbound traffic coming to the games).

I would redesign the Scotiabank Place bus route network as follows:

Smaller events - No 400s would run, but Route 96 would have several trips extended (namely a few of those that do not run to Stittsville) which would allow for trips approximately 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes before the event. Afterward, several overload 96s would be brought in. I believe combining such would make the service more efficient (by utilizing buses already in service) and allow many more no-transfer rides than it does now.

Larger events - All the 400s except 411 (see below), would operate, with fewer trips than for a Senators game.

Senators games and similar-sized events - The number of 400 routes should be increased from 6 to 11 and eventually 12:

401 from Blair (same as now except express beyond Hurdman)

402 from Billings Bridge - shift start to Hurdman, all stops to South Keys, limited stops along Hunt Club to 416, express thereafter

403 from Hurdman through downtown (same as now)

404 from Bayshore - start at Lincoln Fields, stops along Richmond Road to Bayshore then express, remove from Eagleson and Terry Fox

405 from Orleans express (same as now)

406 from Barrhaven Centre (same as now except remove from Bayshore)

407 from Eagleson - NEW, replaces 404 within Kanata operating local

408 from Hurdman - NEW, along Carling similar to Route 101, then serving Pinecrest and Bayshore

409 from Millennium via Innes - NEW, along Innes with limited stops to 417/Innes then express

410 from Carleton - NEW, from Carleton along Baseline with limited stops through to Bells Corners then express

411 from Stittsville - NEW, local within Stittsville then to Scotiabank Place

412 from Leitrim via Riverview - NEW, along Leitrim, Limebank, Earl Armstrong and Strandherd to 416 then express - once Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge opens

Those would create much quicker trips with fewer or no transfers for many more people going to games or the largest events and some faster trip options as well.

[lrt's friend]

For heaven's sake, why are they eliminating certain route numbers in September when the routes remain intact?

I am just looking at the Route 112 schedule. Talk about gobbly-gook. They have combined Route 112, 115 and 141 together but certain runs are following the previous route pattern or some variation. How are you supposed to know where you are going if Route 112 is following three different routes? Do they now need window signs to tell you the destination? This is really pathetic when separate route numbers will better explain this and make the schedule more intelligible.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

For heaven's sake, why are they eliminating certain route numbers in September when the routes remain intact?

I am just looking at the Route 112 schedule. Talk about gobbly-gook. They have combined Route 112, 115 and 141 together but certain runs are following the previous route pattern or some variation. How are you supposed to know where you are going if Route 112 is following three different routes? Do they now need window signs to tell you the destination? This is really pathetic when separate route numbers will better explain this and make the schedule more intelligible.

And look at the 86n Alphabet Soup. They didn't learn from the n84 mess a few years ago?

[Dado]

This is a bit of a mass dump post to pull a discussion out of the Roads thread into the thread it more properly belong in.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do very much appreciate your very imformative posts. Your response is not only valuable to me but everybody else who may look at these posts.

I realize what happened when the Dow's Lake tunnel and the trench were under construction in the 1960s, that the surface line and canal bridge were adjacent and still in service. Is there still room to do what you are suggesting?

North of Carling, the trench is already on the wide side, and north of the Queensway it widens out to full heavy rail double track width. Even the Carling underpass is wide enough for double track light rail (though not double track heavy rail). South of Carling, there aren't any "real" land constraints.

The second question. How much extra would this cost?

Well there's a problematic question. The way the City and their friendly BRT consultants proposed to do it wasn't the most efficient option available to them. The absolute cheapest option would have been to shut down O-Train service but not to remove the tracks. The plan of taking out the existing rails (completely - not even just moving them to the side) and then proceeding to truck out all the rock spoil northwards to Bayview so as to be able to truck to points further south down the line on the other side of the Rideau River where embankments needed to be widened or built is more costly than just leaving the tracks in place and moving the spoil by hopper cars (used hopper cars and locomotives suitable for the purpose are both available for less than $100,000 each). If the rails needed replacing afterwards, this could have been done in one operation - the rail train comes in and drops off 4 new rails for each 2 existing that it takes out. That's far more cost-effective than removing the rails at the beginning by one rail train and then having to deliver their eventual replacements from another rail train at Walkley Yard later on, probably having to truck them all to the site (because one of the things they also wanted to do was raise the floor of the current tunnel, which would prevent a rail train from even going through it anymore).

So while keeping the O-Train operational would have been more costly than the cheapest option of shutting it down but leaving the tracks in place, how that would compare to the City's plan is hard to say, especially once options like weekend shutdowns or lowering daytime non-peak frequency are included in the mix. There's also a cost to shutting down the O-Train in that the replacement bus service is far less cost-effective. Furthermore, I have long criticized some of the other design decisions further south where it runs parallel to the Southeast Transitway as there are very significant savings to be had by eliminating unnecessary overpasses.

The third question. Would this have extended the construction period by trying to keep the O-Train open?

If that was the only change then it probably would have. But the elimination of the numerous overpasses further south would also have saved time and resources.

This all brings up the issue of closing the eastern Transitway during LRT construction. It really is the same issue. There may have also been engineering solution but at what cost?

There are going to be high costs to rerouting all that bus traffic as well. We'll need more buses and more drivers to carry the same overall numbers because it will take longer for each bus to complete a full trip so they won't be available as soon for a second trip.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The route chosen was designed to maximize the population in Riverside South that could access the train within walking distance. It does run through the centre of the community. I have seen the community plan. A straighter route using more of the old CPR right of way and running across Riverside South further south will be less effective and run through more empty undevelopable airport land. We saw that when there was an attempt to build a sports facility in that area that was turned down as being in the 'crash' zone. I guess I don't understand the issue when we are talking about what amounts to gentle curves throughout. Given the type of rail technology that was intended to be used, this should not be an issue. In any event, the community plan has been approved, the land for the rail corridor acquired long ago, and it would be difficult and expensive to have to purchase another right of way. I believe that development near the LRT right of way will soon take place. The biggest fear is that long-term delays in building LRT into Riverside South may turn the right of way into the next Byron Avenue linear park. If this happens, it will no longer be possible to run rail into Riverside South, which will mean our transit investment has been totally lost. One also has to fear about the Barrhaven portion of this transit corridor where housing development is further advanced.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Crazy idea, here, but how about build the transit line along the most direct, shortest, path of least resistance, and then build the new "community" around it?

It's still a curvy-wurvy, which is the only thing anyone in Ottawa is capable of building. New parts of once-rectilinear Shittsville? Curvy-wurvy. Plan for Rockcliffe base? Curvy-wurvy. Kanata, Farrhaven, Orleans, dismal Gatineau? Curvy-wurvy. It's hard-wired into three generations of planners now, and I'm goddamn sick of it.

And just because an LRT train *CAN* turn, doesn't mean it *SHOULD*. Smoothness of ride is another value which has not been given high enough scoring in our transit planning; otherwise the sometimes stomach-churning turns at Lebreton, and from Hurdman through to St. Laurent, might not exist. But money and bureaucratic considerations were judged more important, and bus movement, as always, took priority over passenger considerations.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think I just explained why the train 'should' turn. It is called maximizing your effectiveness, which means maximizing your ridership, which means maximizing your revenue. I also pointed out in a previous post that this also allows us to minimize other costs by minimizing the number of passengers that need to access the train in other ways. We also have to remember than we are working around airport and Greenbelt land and we are not doing anybody a favour by building more of the line through that land where nobody lives or works or shops. Get to where development is going to be built on the most direct route possible. This is exactly what was planned, plus putting a maintenance yard away from complaining residents, unlike the often advocated Walkley Yards which now is right in the midst of residential development thanks to stupid decisions made by council and our planners some years ago.

As far as curvy-wurvy in general, this is a big problem when you are trying to wedge rapid transit into already built up areas. Also because of the general geography of Ottawa with all the waterways and because most of the usuable rail corridors are no longer available for this purpose. If you look at other cities, the only way to follow straight lines is to follow rail corridors or build subways under straight streets, or build streetcars along those straight streets. The rail corridors are mostly gone and built over. Subways are far too expensive for a city this size and streetcars would be too slow to get the job done. Also, many of our major streets are too narrow to accomodate both streetcars and regular traffic without sharing the right of way, which is 19th century thinking.

The comment about Hurdman to St. Laurent is understandable but what is the solution? You want a straight route. How would that have ever been possible? How much expropriation and demolision were we going to need to build a straight route?

Another factor affecting Ottawa's ability to build straight lines is density. It may not be dense compared to Toronto or Montreal or New York but if you look at Dallas or Salt Lake City which are both building a lot of LRT lines, you will notice the striking lack of density. This makes it difficult to provide effective transit but when building LRT, there is lots of room along rail lines, expressways and very wide boulevards to lay track.

It's probably worth posting a plan of what the route actually looks like - and it is still on the books so it's every bit as relevant now as then - so everyone can judge for themselves my "curvy-wurvy" claim:



The route continues east on the same alignment until it makes one last curve into the old railway RoW.

My concern with this route has two parts. For one, it misses most of the employment zone near the airport, just skirting the edge of it. That represents lost potential reverse flow commuters, since people heading to work are far more reluctant to walk long distances at the workplace end of their journey than they are at the residential end of the journey. Note the "Potential Future Leitrim Road Diversion" road north of the line? Why couldn't the LRT use that alignment?

My other concern is the drooping bit below the woodlot west of Limebank. That is some 800 m south of Earl Armstrong. Even where it goes through the 'MU' "Community Core Area" at Limebank/Earl Armstrong it's still some 300 m from the intersection. I would have brought it southwards roughly parallel to Limebank. The City decided to take the line to Barrhaven for reasons not entirely clear since we already have rapid transit corridor going there that can be converted without a needless detour to the southeast. If we really had to follow that plan though I would have taken the line roughly parallel to Earl Armstrong right to the bridge. However, personally I think it would be more beneficial over the long term to continue taking it south along Limebank, which is the direction one would expect development to go in. The chosen route limits future expansion opportunities, or at least requires them to go via the railway corridor to the east.

At this point I would also note that anyone who has already moved into Riverside South, such as the people Clive Doucet managed to trot out, claiming that they are devastated by the cancellation because they were expecting to be able to walk to the train to go downtown is full of it because the train will go nowhere near to any of the already-built or then-underway housing since all of that is to the northwest of Limebank/Earl Armstrong.

[Uhuniau]

I would keep the Bus Crappid Transit - coz that what it'll be for the next thousand years - about two blocks south of Earl Armstrong for as much of its length as possible, and concentrate higher densities along Earl Armstrong, which should be more streety and less collectory.

And why, why, why, why, a million — times why, are we still building this stupid loopy swirly residential street layout that will never, ever, ever grow up or naturally evolve into anything other than shitass "nice" suburbs?

So much for official plans about transit-oriented pedestrian-friendly blah blah — blah; it's just cuter — sprawl.

[lrt's friend]

It is nice to see such well thought out comments.

I guess we all have our ideas but we have one constraint. The Riverside South community plan was approved years ago. This kind of debate needed to take place 10 or more years ago. As I said, it is not really practical to redesign everything when substantial new construction south of Earl Armstrong Road is imminent.

Given the design of arterial roads these days, often with high fences and poor pedestrian access (think of Hunt Club Road), it is often not best to place transit on or immediately adjacent to arterial roads. Modern arterials are the new railways with most development backing away from it. It appears that Earl Armstrong and Limebank Roads are being designed in this manner based on existing development. I am not saying that I agree with this approach to arterial design, but it is simply a fact at the present time.

Regarding reverse commuting, although it is desireable, everything points to the fact that it is harder to get commuters to travel by transit to a suburban business park than to get suburban residents to travel by transit into the city. I suspect that given the proximity to the airport, this business park will be quite low density. Our investment in rapid transit will be best concentrated on residential and retail locations where transit demand will not be almost entirely limited to peak periods. I don't normally like single use low density business parks but I understand that within Riverside South, this is occupying less desireable land close to the airport and not suitable for residential development. In any event, making suburban business parks more transit friendly, means that local transit connections need to be improved. That's why completing the original transit plan to Barrhaven Town Centre is so important. It will allow residents in Riverside South to easily access Barrhaven Town Centre and Barrhaven residents to access the proposed Riverside South Town Centre and the business park. I have just read yesterday that the most successful transit systems of today and the future will be those that go beyond the hub and spoke model but also provide vital cross connections. This is something that we have pretty well abandoned when we dumped the Chiarelli plan in favour of the current transportation master plan. We have gone towards an excessively downtown centric plan, which will not meet future transportation needs.

Why do we continue to build 'loopy swirly' street patterns? Because that is what the house buying public wants. Everybody wants to live on a quiet street. There is very little market for building new housing facing a collector street, let alone a 6 lane arterial boulevard. This is factor of traffic and lot sizes that will make it difficult to safely get in and out of a driveway and traffic noise will impair the enjoyment of your home. It will be very difficult to return to a grid pattern that really only exists in neighbourhoods designed before the car became prevalent. We do need to make sure that these 'loopy swirly' street patterns are limited and do not inhibit pedestrian access, which is a big problem in American cities.

I believe that future extension of LRT to the south will be via the old CPR right of way. This should take place around the year 2250 about a year after LRT is completed to Scotiabank Place IX.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Fuggem. Yards was there first.

Actually my great grandparents house was there first.

That's the thing: I'm not thinking about the already built-up areas. I'm looking at the map of the paper "community" that has yet to be built. Curvy-wurvy all.



I am unconvinced of that, not in the places where they might be required, and really, that's a limited part of an unnecessarily sprawling city.



19th-century thinking is better than 20th-century thinking. What's inherently bad about street rail transit, sharing the ROW with mixed traffic? I fail to see any problem with this whatsoever, at least not for the purposes and in the corridors where it makes sense.

But, hey, having ruled out subways and street-running, care to share what's left? Magic Flying Airbuses?

Running traditional streetcars in mixed traffic is expensive to build and offers no advantages over buses. In fact, there are real disadvantages in the event of an accident or fire. There are some valid reasons why our old streetcars were pulled up in the 1950s. I think you should take a drive behind a streetcar in Toronto. I have. It can be agrivating because they run so slow and they are difficult to get around. It makes no sense to build streetcars that can't have at least their own lane.

Subways are unaffordable in Ottawa because we do not have the tax base to pay for it and outside of downtown, we do not have the density to justify it.

There are other alternatives beyond subways and street running streetcars. We are doing it already by using existing corridors that don't require expensive tunnelling. We could also consider streetcars on wider streets where two lanes could be dedicated to them. This is why Carling Avenue is being considered.

No more than is going to be required to do the re-alignement proposed by the LRT. If the Hurdman Station had been placed slightly further north than it was, and the Train problem had been avoided from the start by running the alignment then that is proposed for LRT now, the entire Hurdman-Train meander could have been relegated to a gentle dog-leg of just a few degrees. Whose property would had to have been expropriated?



Expressway ROWs are terrible choices for transit lines, if you want your transit investment to pay off in TOD.

Not that Ottawa planners would know TOD from their left hemorrhoids, of course, but at least some portions of the Transitway that don't closely follow the Queensway could theoretically lead to more TOD even if the experience to date has been pathetic.

The eastern Transitway follows an expressway and has our highest ridership. It was the only practical route available and we didn't have to deal with NIMBYs. The Western Transitway was to follow Byron Avenue in the beginning but was never built because of you know who.

If TOD involves expenditures like at Baseline Station, I will be happy to forgo it. Our experiences with TOD have been limited because of the location of the Transitways which limit adjacent development. It is not only along the Queensway, but also the Ottawa River Parkway, and the southeast Transitway follows parkland corridors for the most part.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Given the design of arterial roads these days, often with high fences and poor pedestrian access (think of Hunt Club Road),

Thinking out loud here, but how about we stop building them that way?

Why do we continue to build 'loopy swirly' street patterns? Because that is what the house buying public wants.

They want ponies, too. We don't go around giving out ponies.

Everybody wants to live on a quiet street.

And a grid pattern is not inconsistent with quiet. I live on a grid block. Always have in Ottaw, in fact. Never been noticeably more noisy than loopyland places where I've lived or stayed.

If we take away the choice of builders to build more loopylands, the buying public will adjust. They won't have much other choice. The only other option is to make the neosuburbanites pay the true cost of building that way.

There is very little market for building new housing facing a collector street, let alone a 6 lane arterial boulevard.

Which is exactly why you would put commercial, industrial, and institutional uses along them, just as commercial uses crowded out residential ones on the main streets of old-stock neighbourhoods.

It will be very difficult to return to a grid pattern that really only exists in neighbourhoods designed before the car became prevalent.

Indeed it will. Step One is to stop building that way.

Official macro-plans have decried that way of building for almost 40 years now, and yet the micro ones keep approving them.

Let's stop.

We do need to make sure that these 'loopy swirly' street patterns are limited and do not inhibit pedestrian access, which is a big problem in American cities.

Step One: Stop building that way. It's painfully simple.

I believe that future extension of LRT to the south will be via the old CPR right of way. This should take place around the year 2250 about a year after LRT is completed to Scotiabank Place IX.

Somewhere in the middle, isn't there the Build Us A Stadium Downtown Or We're Moving To Baton Rouge phase?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think you should take a drive behind a streetcar in Toronto.

I have. I must have missed something.

I have. It can be agrivating because they run so slow and they are difficult to get around.

Motorists can never possibly be too aggravated in my books. Never. Ever.

Subways are unaffordable in Ottawa because we do not have the tax base to pay for it and outside of downtown, we do not have the density to justify it.

I wouldn't even attempt to justify them outside of downtowns and other densely-built-up areas; whether Ottawa's or any other city's.

There are other alternatives beyond subways and street running streetcars. We are doing it already by using existing corridors that don't require expensive tunnelling.

Yes, but a lot of the cheap-out easy-to-build corridors have virtually no opportunity on the other end of the financial equation to increase the tax base through induced development. There is extremely limited opportunity to up-build between Hurdman and Blair. Contrast that with the, yes, more-expensive to build imaginary Rideau-Montreal underground, but where there are acres and acres of potential TOD sites for development or redevelopment. You can't redevelop the Queensway.

The eastern Transitway follows an expressway and has our highest ridership. It was the only practical route available and we didn't have to deal with NIMBYs.

But the ridership isn't driven locally; it's almost entirely to/from Orleans. Without Orleans it would have been difficult to justify at all.

The Western Transitway was to follow Byron Avenue in the beginning but was never built because of you know who.

Them!

If TOD involves expenditures like at Baseline Station, I will be happy to forgo it.

The Baseline nonsense was utterly avoidable. And yet, mysteriously, the WHAT ABOUT MY TAXES!!?! crowd are almost entirely silent about it. Odd.

Our experiences with TOD have been limited because of the location of the Transitways which limit adjacent development. It is not only along the Queensway, but also the Ottawa River Parkway, and the southeast Transitway follows parkland corridors for the most part.

Which is why, if you can't bring the city to the transit, you have to bring the transit to the city.

That, or start goring some sacred "green space" cows, starting where with the transit, whether rail or bus crappid transit, crosses the bloody Greenbelt.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I have. I must have missed something.



Motorists can never possibly be too aggravated in my books. Never. Ever.



I wouldn't even attempt to justify them outside of downtowns and other densely-built-up areas; whether Ottawa's or any other city's.



Yes, but a lot of the cheap-out easy-to-build corridors have virtually no opportunity on the other end of the financial equation to increase the tax base through induced development. There is extremely limited opportunity to up-build between Hurdman and Blair. Contrast that with the, yes, more-expensive to build imaginary Rideau-Montreal underground, but where there are acres and acres of potential TOD sites for development or redevelopment. You can't redevelop the Queensway.



But the ridership isn't driven locally; it's almost entirely to/from Orleans. Without Orleans it would have been difficult to justify at all.



Them!



The Baseline nonsense was utterly avoidable. And yet, mysteriously, the WHAT ABOUT MY TAXES!!?! crowd are almost entirely silent about it. Odd.



Which is why, if you can't bring the city to the transit, you have to bring the transit to the city.

That, or start goring some sacred "green space" cows, starting where with the transit, whether rail or bus crappid transit, crosses the — Greenbelt.

You may not realize this but for the most part I agree. I am just expressing how I see the current residential and even retail marketplace working in relation to planning and really you and I have essentially no control over changing this. I also have my doubts that the city planning department can dictate this sort of thing either just as they have limited control over the design of buildings. I think it is going to take a revolution to move back to the grid street pattern and main street retail. The public is still smitten with cul de sac housing and big box stores for whatever reason although I tend to hate those places. Remember that this is the private sector and the buyer is always right.

I do still very much disagree with you on streetcars. What you see in Toronto is a legacy of the 19th century and even then, the Spadina and St. Clair streetcars have been moved into exclusive lanes. Toronto will never build another streetcar in mixed traffic again, and as we see today, it may never build another streetcar line again even in exclusive lanes.

As far as your general comments about rapid transit, it is going to be difficult to achieve your desired goals eventhough I totally agree with the one exception of streetcars in mixed traffic. We have decided to spend most of our money on converting the Transitways, which are not in the ideal location to provide real urban transit. I have said it before, the Transitways are really Ottawa's equivalent of Go Trains in that it is more of a commuter route. The fact that we are ending our first LRT line at Blair when the bulk of the ridership is coming from Orleans really shows a major weakness of the plan. We are not even planning to extend the line to Orleans probably in my lifetime. When all is said and done, I have my doubts that even the Carling Avenue streetcar will ever be built with cost overruns likely on all the higher priority projects. Sadly, this leaves urban transit as an afterthought and consequently, our urban main streets will never achieve what may be possible with quality transit located right on the street. This also has implications regarding the project at the former Rockcliffe Airbase. Now that LRT is off the books for Rideau/Montreal Road, we are limiting what we can do with this future development. What could have been a truly urban development, will likely now have to be a somewhat densified suburban development. The city and developers will not be able to build the density originally desired since we have decided not to provide quality transit to the location.

This is going to be the legacy of Larry O'Brien. We may get the downtown tunnel, but he has essentially eliminated the possibility of quality urban transit on our main streets. It may have not been perfect, but when you think about it, what was attempted in Riverside South was to build an urban transit system in a suburb for the first time. This would have been a major achievement but the citizens of Ottawa have said no and when they elected Larry O'Brien they also said that our transit system was going to be almost entirely downtown-centric eventhough residential, retail and employment development is diversifying not only in the suburbs but also in many other locations away from the Transitways. Of course, the only way to get to these places will be by private automobile. Sad, but true.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I also have my doubts that the city planning department can dictate this sort of thing either just as they have limited control over the design of buildings.

They have limited control over the design of buildings, yes, but...

I think it is going to take a revolution to move back to the grid street pattern and main street retail.

The city actually has the power to impose a street pattern, one which they've allowed to get rusty. But it's still on the books.

The public is still smitten with cul de sac housing and big box stores for whatever reason although I tend to hate those places. Remember that this is the private sector and the buyer is always right.

The streets aren't the private sector, though. The city should be imposing a street pattern, which builders can then build on in conformity with market demand.... now, AND in the future.

The problem with squirrelly suburbs is that the meet market demands and tastes NOW... but are then frozen in time. Griddier layouts would allow for adaptations, and changes to neighbourhoods much earlier in their lifespans. This would in turn reduce the demand to build out more greenfields in the first place.

Is there ANY post-war squirrelly neighbourhood that has had any significant changes to its built form or building stock since it was first laid out? I can't think of a single Ottawa example. They are all frozen in 1952/1966/1974/1986/1994/whenever the bloody things were first built. Every single one.

I have said it before, the Transitways are really Ottawa's equivalent of Go Trains in that it is more of a commuter route.

For the most part. They could have been a little more transit-y, but again, in visionless Ottawa, the path of least resistance was chosen. As always.

This also has implications regarding the project at the former Rockcliffe Airbase. Now that LRT is off the books for Rideau/Montreal Road, we are limiting what we can do with this future development.

BUT THERE'LL BE LOTS OF GREEN SPACE!!!!!!!!

What could have been a truly urban development, will likely now have to be a somewhat densified suburban development. The city and developers will not be able to build the density originally desired since we have decided not to provide quality transit to the location.

Even with LRT on Montreal, it would have been difficult to orient Rockliffe to it, without also rebuilding the NRC property.

This is going to be the legacy of Larry O'Brien. We may get the downtown tunnel, but he has essentially eliminated the possibility of quality urban transit on our main streets.

To my mind, QUTOOMS is streetcars.

[lrt's friend]

I am unfortunately having to make regular visits to the General Hospital again. I have made the observation that it is going to be rather confusing to use transit there. Depending on the time of day, the main bus stop at the General Hospital is going to be at different locations. For the casual transit rider not travelling to the hospital every day, how do you know when to use each bus stop. This issue is more than the red and black numbers on the bus stop sign, because you need to know when the first and last buses make the circuit of the ring road. Furthermore, the off-peak bus stop is located where there is a lack of sidewalks and there is no shelter. Of course, many bus shelters in the city will now have no transit service and the alternate location now has no shelter. Is the city going to deal with this or they going to leave people at busy stops waiting in the rain and snow?

It seems to me that over several years, we have built our pedestrian infrastructure to fit in with transit. With the latest changes, our pedestrian access no longer fits with transit in some cases.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

For the most part. They [transitways] could have been a little more transit-y, but again, in visionless Ottawa, the path of least resistance was chosen. As always.

Some of them though, like Scott Street, would have been much nicer if an at-grade light rail line had been built along them rather than a trenched busway. Rather than being something that people turn their backs to, it could have become the focus of development activity.

To my mind, QUTOOMS [Quality Urban Transit On Our Main Streets] is streetcars.

The term "streetcar" as a type of rail service is generally now regarded as referring to the bus-like operation of rail vehicles in mixed traffic. Some of Toronto's rebuilt streetcar lines would not today be regarded as "streetcars" if they had been built from scratch or if they didn't continue to operate the old streetcars. The Germans started making a distinction between 'Straßenbahn' (street rail) and 'Stadtbahn' (city/urban rail) when they began to upgrade their old tram lines by putting them in exclusive rights of way, making use of tunnels and grade separations where needed, and allowing for longer trains with fewer stops.

It is quite possible to have QUTOOMS that don't operate as streetcars. Calgary and Edmonton provide some examples (in places) of this, as do many European cities. Similarly, running light rail in exclusive lanes down the middle of Carling Ave with medians on either side of it would not be a streetcar operation. Some parts of the N-S LRT are supposed to look like this.

Light rail can get more rail-like still, running in its own rail corridor.

My preference would be to run light rail in its own rail corridor but very close to a main street (i.e. just one block away, so that some buildings share mainstreet and light rail frontage). When you run light rail in a main street, there tends to be an increased need for grade separation to deal with turning at intersections (due to the extra time required in the light cycle for the turning movements across the tracks) that you can avoid simply by putting it a block away, which simplifies all crossing movements, allowing for shorter light cycles.

In fact, if I had it my way, I'd probably create a "triple mainstreet" consisting of a light rail "street" in the centre flanked by two one-way streets on either side each a block away. That way no one street becomes too wide while still allowing for plenty of space for wide sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees, onstreet parking and loading zones, etc as well as a clearly defined place for high density development. All buildings fronting the light rail street would also front one of the one-way streets.

To take the Riverside South example, the current rural Limebank could become one of the one-way streets with the new light rail line run a block away down one side and the other one-way street built another block away still. Alternatively, Limebank itself could even be used for the light rail line (since when rural roads are [sub]urbanized they are completely dug up and fitted out with various utilities anyway, it's probably less hassle to convert an old rural road to a light rail line than it is to convert it to an urban arterial), with two new one-way streets built a block away on either side (call them "East Limebank" and "West Limebank"). The great thing about this way of doing things is that even if the light rail line isn't built out at first, the old road is sitting right there ready for the rail in the future. It's not some greenspace waiting to get built on and which can build up a coterie of grass preservationists because it remains a strip of asphalt. Heck, it could even take buses in the meantime if need be.

[lrt's friend]

Interesting comments but other than changing the Riverside South plan, where could that be applied to Ottawa's main streets? We do not have enough parallel streets to make this successful. Even Bank Street does not have continuous parallel streets and there are long blocks on either side. You can also see the NIMBYs getting out in force to prevent rail running on more residential Kent and O'Connor Streets. Can you imagine light rail on O'Connor Street in the Glebe? Heck, it has been decades since through traffic has been allowed. A good suggestion for better street railway operations however.

[Dado]

I did envisage it as a new build sort of thing, though in places with a fairly uniform street grid and in which major land assembly has already taken place it could work too. Other locations in Ottawa would mainly be in the other suburbs. It could be applied to Greenbank in Barrhaven, the future north-south arterial between Kanata and Stittsville, and the Blackburn Hamlet Bypass extension (which I think has another name designated that escapes me at the moment) in Orleans.

For the reasons you note, there's not a lot of general applicability elsewhere in the city. I didn't come up with it while in Ottawa or even for Ottawa. I first thought of it in Calgary as a way to better integrate transit into new suburbs there. The concept itself is based roughly on Curitiba's trinary road system and a "normalized" version of Calgary's 7th Avenue C-Train transit mall. I say "normalized" because while the one-way 6th Avenue goes the "right" way, 8th Avenue is partially pedestrianized and goes in both directions where it isn't.