Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

It is unclear from reading all of this what problem the western extension is meant to solve. Most people will still have to transfer but will do so at baseline or Lincoln fields instead of Tunney's. I would think that given the increased number of stops, commutes would get longer. It was one thing when it was a low cost surface route, but as it gets more and more expensive the case becomes less clear.

[citizen j]

^It's a good question. Answering it requires a rethinking of what the city is and means. Projects like this might do something to increase capacity for commuters from the outer suburbs and might even shave off a few minutes (or not, due to transfers). But Ottawa has grown too large for the old adult school bus model of the express route system and, simultaneously, the city has recognized (like so many other North American cities) that it needs to stop measuring its success or failure solely/largely by what's happening in its outer suburbs. Does it take longer than it used to to get to work on the bus from March Road and Halton Terrace or Innes and Portobello? Maybe, maybe not. Are larger numbers of people using transit? Yes. Will commuters be required to alter their travel habits in order to accommodate growth? Yes. Should the LRT line be designed to maximize the comfort and convenience of suburban commuters or should those concerns be balanced with what is needed across the entire urban area? In other words, should the built form and quality of life inside the Greenbelt be subservient to the convenience of those outside the Greenbelt? That's a question without a uniformly satisfactory answer for all residents of the city. But it has seemed for decades like the answer was "yes," and that was the guiding principle for the way transit, along with the road network, was conceived and built. OCTranspo was deemed successful if it could get me from Jeanne D'Arc and Grey Nuns to downtown in as little time as possible, regardless of how many dead-heading buses that put into the system at rush hour or diverted from busy inner-city routes.

So to get back to your initial question, the problem meant to be solved isn't one focused uniquely on Kanata, Barrhaven, or Orleans. There's also the problem of transportation and system capacity closer to downtown. As the inconvenience of transferring at Tunney's Pasture is displaced out to Lincoln Fields and Baseline, the older communities serviced by the extension and its stations will be transformed (something homeowners along Richmond Road seem to be nervous about judging from this week's press). And if increased numbers of stations inside the Greenbelt make travel times longer for those coming in from the extreme ends of the system, that negative is counterbalanced by increased coverage and better connectivity in the older urban areas near those new stations.

To expect Confederation Line to cater primarily to the needs of Kanata, Orleans, or Barrhaven is unreasonable and nothing OCTranspo or the city proposes will meet those criteria unless Ottawans are willing to have the city spend a whole lot more money on transit (and pay for it through their taxes). Instead, the project is more about changing Bayview, Richmond Road, Westboro, Tunney's Pasture, the empty fields south of St. Laurent, the area around the Train Station, the underused areas near Cyrville, etc. The "problem" addressed, if not solved, is the problem created back around the end of the Second World War when the city began to turn itself into an inefficient, car-oriented, unsustainable and semi-dysfunctional suburb.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by citizen j

The "problem" addressed, if not solved, is the problem created back around the end of the Second World War when the city began to turn itself into an inefficient, car-oriented, unsustainable and semi-dysfunctional suburb.

And which it continues to do apace, despite decades of official plans which supposedly call for the opposite. Lots of pretty words, and still crappy, ugly, sprawling, use-segregated, inefficient, tax-wasting suburban garbage is all that ever gets approved and built by the builders with no imagination and the city government with no gonads.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is unclear from reading all of this what problem the western extension is meant to solve. Most people will still have to transfer but will do so at baseline or Lincoln fields instead of Tunney's. I would think that given the increased number of stops, commutes would get longer. It was one thing when it was a low cost surface route, but as it gets more and more expensive the case becomes less clear.

It will serve a few hundred thousand people living in old Ottawa and Nepean, Algonquin College and the City's Centrepoint complex. It's not just about the suburbs. But for them, transferring at Lincoln Fields will be less chaotic.

[DarkArconio]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And which it continues to do apace, despite decades of official plans which supposedly call for the opposite. Lots of pretty words, and still crappy, ugly, sprawling, use-segregated, inefficient, tax-wasting suburban garbage is all that ever gets approved and built by the builders with no imagination and the city government with no gonads.

Ottawa should be commended for planning BRT routes and town centres in every new suburban expansion area, connecting into the existing BRT/LRT networks.
This is exactly how a transit system should be, with high capacity high speed networks in the core, connected to a more flexible and cheaper system in the suburbs. Combine this with a more built out bike path/ lane system, and 20 years from now Ottawa will be a far more modern and urban city than it is today. I'm very impressed with the direction we seem to be heading.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

Ottawa should be commended for planning BRT routes and town centres in every new suburban expansion area, connecting into the existing BRT/LRT networks.
This is exactly how a transit system should be, with high capacity high speed networks in the core, connected to a more flexible and cheaper system in the suburbs. Combine this with a more built out bike path/ lane system, and 20 years from now Ottawa will be a far more modern and urban city than it is today. I'm very impressed with the direction we seem to be heading.

Planning BRT into curvy, sprawly, strip-mally, cul-de-sacky continuations of post-war suburban planning crap is not much of an improvement.

Transit planning should go hand in hand with smarter, better land-use planning, but in Ottawa, the latter is seriously lacking. We are just building slightly better transit into equally crappy suburban sprawl. This is not sustainable: it just adds yet another layer of municipal services that have to be supported in neighbourhoods which, by their inherent physical design, do not pay their own freight.

It has to stop. It should have stopped thirty years ago. But Ottawa keeps building the same crappy, inefficient way.

[DarkArconio]

Well the challenge is that sort of development is demanded by the market and mandated by provincial policy. There is only so much a municipality can do to limit it, but trying to limit urban boundary expansions and emphasizing higher density cores within suburban developments, along with improved transit, all are steps in the right direction. I agree with you, but to have real change in these areas, you need to change the incentive structure that shapes demand for these things, and that's a matter for higher levels of government.

[J.OT13]

Suburbs are here to stay. As long as we don't invest billions in serving every nook and cranny of suburban hell I'm fine with it. Bad ideas such as the Cambrian transit spur down south, the Stittsville Transitway and the Cumberland Transitway (they can have N/S buses to the 174 ORT line) should be shelved for eternity. I would not go any further than the Palladium west and Trim to the east (condo towers, college campus and potential for way more density).

[JM1]

I would like to see suburban developers either be force to pay for or else build downtown transit connections. The cheap land that they get should not be a cost for those already established in the city.

Such an arrangement leads naturallly to be better, transit-oriented, development.

Think of how London's suburbs (now part of central London) were built at the end of the 1800's and in the first part of the 1900's. Railways built tracks out to remote areas, built housing there for commuters, and profited by (a) selling the housing and (b) moving the workers in an out of the city. The result is a fabric of neighbourhoods, each with its own high street for shopping, connected to the city centre by quality public transit.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Suburbs are here to stay. As long as we don't invest billions in serving every nook and cranny of suburban hell I'm fine with it. Bad ideas such as the Cambrian transit spur down south, the Stittsville Transitway and the Cumberland Transitway (they can have N/S buses to the 174 ORT line) should be shelved for eternity. I would not go any further than the Palladium west and Trim to the east (condo towers, college campus and potential for way more density).

[bartlebooth]

Recent changes to the Transitway at Laurier and Nicholas seem to be in full effect today. I saw buses using the new bus only lanes on Laurier this afternoon. I believe I read that work is supposed to begin this July on east tunnel entrance. Should be interesting to watch.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Recent changes to the Transitway at Laurier and Nicholas seem to be in full effect today. I saw buses using the new bus only lanes on Laurier this afternoon. I believe I read that work is supposed to begin this July on east tunnel entrance. Should be interesting to watch.

Can't wait to see the work at Place de Ville's parking lot.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Can't wait to see the work at Place de Ville's parking lot.

Is that where they are digging a shaft for the tunnel?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Is that where they are digging a shaft for the tunnel?

Yes. They will dig a shaft and it will provide them a third and fourth direction (east and west) in which to dig from a (roughly when looking between the escarpment and the canal) central point. I figure the "trade-off" from allowing the city to use their parking lot was to have a direct (and possibly a monopoly) connection to the subway station. Or a more positive spin would be to have the city on their side to build taller on the site. But it would still be subject to NCC opposition.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by j.ot13

ottawa sun article;
westboro; metropole (i don't like the surrounding street names)

no.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Suburbs are here to stay. As long as we don't invest billions in serving every nook and cranny of suburban hell I'm fine with it. Bad ideas such as the Cambrian transit spur down south, the Stittsville Transitway and the Cumberland Transitway (they can have N/S buses to the 174 ORT line) should be shelved for eternity. I would not go any further than the Palladium west and Trim to the east (condo towers, college campus and potential for way more density).

Yes, suburbs are here to stay.

But CRAPPY suburbs don't have to be here to stay. We can build better ones. And we can give existing ones the legal overlay that will allow them to evolve over time.

But there's not the political will to do either of those things, so Ottawa will continue to build physical- and fiscal-resource-guzzling crap suburbs, whose residents will then spend the rest of their lives bitching about the taxes they have to pay (even though they are far from onerous) and no one will ever once allow the argument that the two things are two sides of the same public policy coin.

[lrt's friend]

We have gotten ourselves into a cost pickle because we didn't allocate land for rapid transit until quite recently. To complain about the city being proactive about designating corridors for rapid transit in newer suburbs is foolish lack of foresight. In due course, this will save us countless millions. To suggest that transit riders have to follow congested roads for several kms before reaching rapid transit dooms our suburbs increasingly to car commuting even more than today, and the building of more and more roads at an accelerating pace. Does this sound unsustainable? You are right.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yes, suburbs are here to stay.

But CRAPPY suburbs don't have to be here to stay. We can build better ones. And we can give existing ones the legal overlay that will allow them to evolve over time.

But there's not the political will to do either of those things, so Ottawa will continue to build physical- and fiscal-resource-guzzling crap suburbs, whose residents will then spend the rest of their lives bitching about the taxes they have to pay (even though they are far from onerous) and no one will ever once allow the argument that the two things are two sides of the same public policy coin.

What would your version of a "better suburb" be? I ask because I wonder is it political will or is it just people want the kind of suburbs they have now rather than your version?

As for taxes; what is onerous? They seem pretty high to me. I also always thought suburbanites were getting a relatively good deal property tax wise, but if you look at the city budget the bulk is spent on police and fire; transit; and social services. Not sure you could say that average spending on any of these is greater than more central neighbourhoods.The strongest case for that would be on Roads but this is less than 10% of the budget.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What would your version of a "better suburb" be? I ask because I wonder is it political will or is it just people want the kind of suburbs they have now rather than your version?

As for taxes; what is onerous? They seem pretty high to me. I also always thought suburbanites were getting a relatively good deal property tax wise, but if you look at the city budget the bulk is spent on police and fire; transit; and social services. Not sure you could say that average spending on any of these is greater than more central neighbourhoods.The strongest case for that would be on Roads but this is less than 10% of the budget.

I'll take a crack at it. Street grid design with main (medium density residential and main street type commercial), secondary (townhomes) and local (single family) arteries with a natural flow of buses on the main (and possibly a few routes on secondary) heading towards rapid transit stations at key areas (where we would find park and rides and employment area, but with some after ours interest à la downtown instead of just banal office blocks with no retail/restaurants, surrounded by parking.)

My opinion of better designed suburbs. Although I must say I love the mid century suburbs with smaller, quality homes and big lots. But they may not have been "efficient".

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Although I must say I love the mid century suburbs with smaller, quality homes and big lots. But they may not have been "efficient".

Or "viable" in the long run. Those large lots are very attractive to developers who, if zoning permits or the city is amenable, will tear down a 60 year-old bungalow and erect several multi-storey townhouses in its place. I live in a mid-century suburb where this is happening with greater and greater frequency. In effect, an inefficient suburban model has reached the end of its shelf-life and is being systematically transformed into something else closer to what you and Uhuniau are describing. And as you point out, the key to a more complete transformation is mixed use -- retail or other commercial uses on those intensified streets. Without it, it's just a more tightly packed version of the same old thing.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Or "viable" in the long run. Those large lots are very attractive to developers who, if zoning permits or the city is amenable, will tear down a 60 year-old bungalow and erect several multi-storey townhouses in its place. I live in a mid-century suburb where this is happening with greater and greater frequency. In effect, an inefficient suburban model has reached the end of its shelf-life and is being systematically transformed into something else closer to what you and Uhuniau are describing. And as you point out, the key to a more complete transformation is mixed use -- retail or other commercial uses on those intensified streets. Without it, it's just a more tightly packed version of the same old thing.

Hurts every time I see it, but not as much as seeing two quality mid-century bungalows torn down for a ugly piece of junk McMansion.