Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Really, I think that buses running in mixed traffic with transit priority at traffic lights is good enough for the suburban branch routes.

Obviously, you didn't read my comment from last week where I complained about our decision making being based on everything except moving people faster.

This was a follow-up on a rail bias comment from another discussion elsewhere in Skyscraper. The point was that it isn't rail that will attract passengers, but fast and frequent service.

I think our decision making has become extremely faulty. The ability to move people faster should be foremost in our decisions. Yet, is it? I don't think so.

There needs to proper assessment between service delivery and cost of doing so. Building rail lines for the sake of building rail lines is pure foolishness. We can spend billions upon billions and not move a single person any faster than today. And we will pay with the results if transit modal share does not increase. I am not convinced that the Confederation Line will deliver what has been promised as it simply mimics the Transitway. The service will not be faster and it will not be more frequent. I know that something needed to be done about downtown congestion and a tunnel is inevitable but if our only plan is to simply replace Transitways with rail, we will receive a rude awakening after spending many billions.

Spending all our money rail lines (and the way things are going, only one rail line) is the mistake that so many American cities have made. The original comment came about someone complaining about DART in Dallas being so extensive but transit ridership is flat. You need a top notch bus network to support your rail network and you need proper city planning. If we decide to run all buses feeding rail in mixed traffic, we are living in a fool's paradise. We cannot possibly afford to build rail everywhere and busways will be the answer in some cases. We cannot also force everybody to use the Confederation Line, if it is forcing somebody too far out of their way. Again, where is the consideration of the speed of service?

Before get too gung-ho about rail, consider how Ottawa is decentralizing. Blowing everything on one rail line will make it impossible to consider other creative solutions in better serving a more decentralized city.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Obviously, you didn't read my comment from last week where I complained about our decision making being based on everything except moving people faster.

This was a follow-up on a rail bias comment from another discussion elsewhere in Skyscraper. The point was that it isn't rail that will attract passengers, but fast and frequent service.

I think our decision making has become extremely faulty. The ability to move people faster should be foremost in our decisions. Yet, is it? I don't think so.

There needs to proper assessment between service delivery and cost of doing so. Building rail lines for the sake of building rail lines is pure foolishness. We can spend billions upon billions and not move a single person any faster than today. And we will pay with the results if transit modal share does not increase. I am not convinced that the Confederation Line will deliver what has been promised as it simply mimics the Transitway. The service will not be faster and it will not be more frequent. I know that something needed to be done about downtown congestion and a tunnel is inevitable but if our only plan is to simply replace Transitways with rail, we will receive a rude awakening after spending many billions.

Spending all our money rail lines (and the way things are going, only one rail line) is the mistake that so many American cities have made. The original comment came about someone complaining about DART in Dallas being so extensive but transit ridership is flat. You need a top notch bus network to support your rail network and you need proper city planning. If we decide to run all buses feeding rail in mixed traffic, we are living in a fool's paradise. We cannot possibly afford to build rail everywhere and busways will be the answer in some cases. We cannot also force everybody to use the Confederation Line, if it is forcing somebody too far out of their way. Again, where is the consideration of the speed of service?

Before get too gung-ho about rail, consider how Ottawa is decentralizing. Blowing everything on one rail line will make it impossible to consider other creative solutions in better serving a more decentralized city.

But is it not foolish to build bus transitways that will be converted to rail within a decade or two?

I fully agree that the current 12.5 km line will do little to encourage new ridership, maybe even discourage it somewhat, but to say that it won't result in a faster, more reliable trip is false. And the frequency is a little less than say the 95 bus line, but having a train every 2 to 3 minutes is fine by me. The service will be comparable with Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver, which brings another point; I don't believe these cities have rapid bus transit to feed the subways (although TO has the TTC Streetcars Downtown), and these cities by far have the best ridership proportionally to any other Canadian or even the vast majority of American cities.

And we can't compare Ottawa, or any other of the big 5 Canadian cities. These mid sized American cities are extremely car centric. Just look at the swaths of parking lots and multiple super highways in their Downtowns, not to mention dirt cheap parking and gas.

The faster we finish the ORT, the faster we can build the Carling LRT between Bronson and Kanata North and the faster (I hope) the Bank-Rideau-Montreal Subway.

[1overcosc]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tories+talk+transit+Ottawa+South/8662894/story.html

According to this article the city is pretty confident it will get a 'warm response' when it asks the province for transit. Where exactly this confidence comes from, the article doesn't say. It also seems to say the city is looking to get MORE than 1/3 from the province.

Also in a fair world the feds would pick up the entire tab for the extra cost required to please the NCC and split the cost of the rest... but we all know that is SO likely

[1overcosc]

The point was that it isn't rail that will attract passengers, but fast and frequent service.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think more bus transitways is needed for fast and frequent service. Simply adding more trips to existing suburban bus routes and adding transit priority measures to traffic lights would make suburban transit much better for a much smaller cost than adding new BRT routes.

[1overcosc]

And we can't compare Ottawa, or any other of the big 5 Canadian cities. These mid sized American cities are extremely car centric. Just look at the swaths of parking lots and multiple super highways in their Downtowns, not to mention dirt cheap parking and gas.

There's also the fact that the Canadian people seem to be more transit positive than the American people (because of cultural differences possibly?) Check this out: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/NorthAmericanPublicTransport.png. Notice how Canadian cities generally rank above American cities when it comes to transit ridership despite being smaller. Also notice that Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Calgary stand above ALL american cities save for New York and only San Fran and DC come close.

[S-Man]

It's a tough call to make if you're at all fiscally minded! I'd hate it to be my decision.

But, if we/I were to forge ahead with an NCC-appeasing Western LRT plan, I'd worry about what the extra costs might take away from in the future. Future lines could well require design changes to be made that would push the costs up a few tens of millions on future phases.

All that adds up. The number of $73 million was tossed about. Well, that would essentially pay for the expansion of the O-Train to the airport and Riverside South/Findlay Creek. That's a needed extension - needed sooner rather than later, I would add.

It would be a shame if appeasement costs kept needed improvements from happening.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

But is it not foolish to build bus transitways that will be converted to rail within a decade or two?

I fully agree that the current 12.5 km line will do little to encourage new ridership, maybe even discourage it somewhat, but to say that it won't result in a faster, more reliable trip is false. And the frequency is a little less than say the 95 bus line, but having a train every 2 to 3 minutes is fine by me. The service will be comparable with Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver ...

I partially agree with your contention about rail encouraging new ridership. In addition to an increase in speed, especially through the downtown core, LRT will be more reliable due to the positive impact of the tunnel downtown. This will be especially evident on commuters crossing downtown to their ultimate destination.

If the LRT was built first instead of the BRT, then we would have saved a lot of the conversion costs and we would have reduced the impact of inflation on the total cost. We also could have eliminated the agruments about less than perfect routings by building the line in the right place to begin with. Now we are stuck with line with significant long term problems.

The parameters for determining the benefits of one type of transit over the other should consider the attributes you mentioned and others. I see these parameters, in no particular order to be as follows; speed, scalability to increase frequency and capacity, reliability, service to key nodes,long term cost and initial cost. I think we are sometimes focusing too much on one of these aspects and ignoring others at our peril.

[lrt's friend]

We need to look at the overall picture of the quality of service. The vast majority are not going to live along the Confederation Line even with maximum intensification. What about everybody else? If we let the bus network 'go to pot', which is what has happened in American cities, we will not gain ridership as anticipated. We need to make getting around the city by transit easier thinking beyond just that one corridor. I worry when we say that only cheap measures are needed for the 90% of the population not living within walking distance of our one LRT line. My experience with the implementation of rapid transit in general, is that service away from rapid transit into local neighbourhoods and local business areas has and continues to deteriorate. I do not think that this is a good trend.

If you look at cities like Toronto and Montreal, the quality of bus and streetcar service away from the subways is far better than what we are offering.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by S-Man

It's a tough call to make if you're at all fiscally minded! I'd hate it to be my decision.

But, if we/I were to forge ahead with an NCC-appeasing Western LRT plan, I'd worry about what the extra costs might take away from in the future. Future lines could well require design changes to be made that would push the costs up a few tens of millions on future phases.

All that adds up. The number of $73 million was tossed about. Well, that would essentially pay for the expansion of the O-Train to the airport and Riverside South/Findlay Creek. That's a needed extension - needed sooner rather than later, I would add.

It would be a shame if appeasement costs kept needed improvements from happening.

In the online Sun a few days ago, the City was already talking about cheeping out, maybe (worst case scenario) taking out one of the new western stations because of the extra cost of burying the Sir John A. portion.

I certainly hope the City demands, not ask, but DEMAND more than 1/3 from the Province and DEMAND that the feds cover the extra cost of burying the John A. portion.

As for "lrt's friend's" comment, I agree that the TTC Streetcars are likely of huge importance to fill in the gaps left by the Subway and if I would have my way, our streetcar system would still be there. I can't recall any sort of superior bus service in Montreal or Vancouver, so I can't comment on that. Seems the cheapest and best way to cover the gaps between the ORT lines would be bus lanes until proper rail service is implemented in those areas.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In the online Sun a few days ago, the City was already talking about cheeping out, maybe (worst case scenario) taking out one of the new western stations because of the extra cost of burying the Sir John A. portion.

I certainly hope the City demands, not ask, but DEMAND more than 1/3 from the Province and DEMAND that the feds cover the extra cost of burying the John A. portion.

As for "lrt's friend's" comment, I agree that the TTC Streetcars are likely of huge importance to fill in the gaps left by the Subway and if I would have my way, our streetcar system would still be there. I can't recall any sort of superior bus service in Montreal or Vancouver, so I can't comment on that. Seems the cheapest and best way to cover the gaps between the ORT lines would be bus lanes until proper rail service is implemented in those areas.

No city can afford 'until proper rail service is implemented in those areas'. This does not happen and this will not happen. And to build a streetcar in mixed traffic today, is a huge waste of money. Bus service will be just as effective without the enormous infrastructure cost. The TTC streetcars are a legacy system dating to the horse and buggy era. They serve a purpose but nobody would build something like that today unless space is available for reserved lanes. In the denser parts of Ottawa, that is not possible. The superior bus service I am referring to offers frequencies of 10 minutes or better. This applies on numerous bus routes in Toronto and Montreal. On one recent trip, I noticed a constant stream of buses on Pie IX in Montreal on a Saturday, probably running every 3 minutes. What do we get in Ottawa? Every 15 minutes if we are lucky on our busiest streets. Let's face it, the Confederation Line is not going to serve our busy arterial streets. It can't. To make them accessible, we need better bus service. There will not be rail service on any of those streets, not even Carling despite the 2008 TMP. In the suburbs, we need to get buses quickly to key points including LRT. In the GTA, they are now building busways where they make sense. Until we also consider better service delivery away from the Confederation Line, we are not going to see the ridership progress that we are hoping for.

As I said, we need to look at the whole picture. If we just consider the rail side of it and ignore or minimize the importance of buses, we are not going to achieve our goals.

[OTSkyline]

I totally agree with everyone about how this is only 1 line and it will not serve everyone and I too hope it expands pretty quickly with expansions to South, East & West.

BUT, let's not forget how much better this 1 line will be than the bus system we have now. I used to work right downtown close to Bank/Laurier and I can attest that commuting was a nightmare. From Laurier station to my home was acceptable (although there was often backups or bus traffic) because it had it own transitway but going from Laurier to Bank Street was a nightmare! Only 3 or 4 stops to go but it would often take 20-30 minutes because of the mix of bus + car traffic downtown AND let's not forget the traffic lights!!

Now with the tunnel, the trains won't back up or get stuck in car/bus traffic nor will it have to stop at traffic lights, which should make for a faster/smoother/more convenient commute.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And the frequency is a little less than say the 95 bus line, but having a train every 2 to 3 minutes is fine by me.

If only the 95 came every 2 or 3 minutes. That NEVER happens.

What happens, is you get three 95s every ten minutes. Or two 95s and a 94. Or two 97s and two 85s and an 86 and a 98 and a WHERE'S THE DAMN 95 ALREADY?

The faster we finish the ORT, the faster we can build the Carling LRT between Bronson and Kanata North and the faster (I hope) the Bank-Rideau-Montreal Subway.

Post-amalgamation, with the suburbs growing in population and power, there will never, ever be another downtown subway line. Future money will be spent on LRT extensions to the outer burbs, cross-subsidized with the higher proportionate taxes and transit fares, and lower cost of services, that central neighbourhood residents and commercial taxpayers gift the suburbs with.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

No city can afford 'until proper rail service is implemented in those areas'. This does not happen and this will not happen. And to build a streetcar in mixed traffic today, is a huge waste of money. Bus service will be just as effective without the enormous infrastructure cost. The TTC streetcars are a legacy system dating to the horse and buggy era. They serve a purpose but nobody would build something like that today unless space is available for reserved lanes. In the denser parts of Ottawa, that is not possible. The superior bus service I am referring to offers frequencies of 10 minutes or better. This applies on numerous bus routes in Toronto and Montreal. On one recent trip, I noticed a constant stream of buses on Pie IX in Montreal on a Saturday, probably running every 3 minutes. What do we get in Ottawa? Every 15 minutes if we are lucky on our busiest streets. Let's face it, the Confederation Line is not going to serve our busy arterial streets. It can't. To make them accessible, we need better bus service. There will not be rail service on any of those streets, not even Carling despite the 2008 TMP. In the suburbs, we need to get buses quickly to key points including LRT. In the GTA, they are now building busways where they make sense. Until we also consider better service delivery away from the Confederation Line, we are not going to see the ridership progress that we are hoping for.

As I said, we need to look at the whole picture. If we just consider the rail side of it and ignore or minimize the importance of buses, we are not going to achieve our goals.

I agree we shouldn't reinstate the streetcar system as it was, or anything like it ,although I would agree to a downtown loop between Ottawa and Gatineau connecting the museums and federal complexes and a semi grade separated classic LRT, as opposed to the metro grade Confederation line, on Carling.

What kind of bus service are you supporting? The Transitways stretching into the suburbs as the City proposes or urban bus lines?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Bus service will be just as effective without the enormous infrastructure cost.

Bus service does not induce changes in land use and bus service is physically uncomfortable (though it needn't be, but OC Transpo does nothing about shitty drivers).

I'll take mixed-traffic TTC streetcars any day over the best mixed-traffic buses.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Only 3 or 4 stops to go but it would often take 20-30 minutes because of the mix of bus + car traffic downtown AND let's not forget the traffic lights!!

No, it takes 20-30 minutes because of the bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus bus traffic. The system is cludgy and inefficient by design.

The worst of it could be ameliorated by abolishing the express routes, but there is no will to do that. The suburbanites cushy posteriors have been spoiled by them.

[J.OT13]

I agree. They should have used the Transitway as a hub and spoke system like a subway from day one; it would have made the system much more efficient and would have made the adaptation to rail much smoother than what it will be.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree. They should have used the Transitway as a hub and spoke system like a subway from day one; it would have made the system much more efficient and would have made the adaptation to rail much smoother than what it will be.

When a bus is full, a bus is full, transferring people to another bus doesn't have ANY efficiency gain.

A subway is a different matter since it's usually faster and costs less per passenger to to the technology.

[matty14]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree. They should have used the Transitway as a hub and spoke system like a subway from day one; it would have made the system much more efficient and would have made the adaptation to rail much smoother than what it will be.

The problem with doing that is that it eliminates one of the major selling points for BRT over LRT and that is its so called "flexibility", i.e. local buses can operate on small sections of transitway to service major trip generators, express buses can cover a residential neighbourhood and then boot it downtown, and small sections of transitway can be used while new sections are being built (whereas for light rail you have to wait until the entire line is complete to even use it).

If we were going to operate a hub-and-spoke system we might as well have gone with LRT in the first place. The savings in operation costs and future conversion would almost offset the extra capital investment required for LRT over BRT.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

When a bus is full, a bus is full, transferring people to another bus doesn't have ANY efficiency gain.

A subway is a different matter since it's usually faster and costs less per passenger to to the technology.

Subways beat buses any day of the week, but I think that if they would have made "bus lines" like subway lines, so just have the articulated 90 series on the Transitway and have local buses drop people at rapid transit stations would have been more simple. Having a bunch of express routes, some over capacity, some half empty is extremely inefficient, not to mention trying to figure out which bus is yours amongst 30 vehicles 🞵🞵🞵 to 🞵🞵🞵.

But again, rapid rail transit beats buses any day of the week. That's why I advocate a zero investment in bus rapid transit and instead spend all available cash on extending the ORT as far as possible.

[1overcosc]

I certainly hope the City demands, not ask, but DEMAND more than 1/3 from the Province and DEMAND that the feds cover the extra cost of burying the John A. portion.

Everything I've read so far indicates that the city is doing exactly that with respect to provincial funding (not sure about federal funding)--including using the YOU'RE PAYING 100% ON TORONTO PROJECTS SO WHY NOT US rant. We've got a byelection going on in Ottawa South. Right now would be the perfect time to demand an immediate funding commitment. It would force Wynne to put-up-or-shut-up regarding province-wide fairness especially with all the fearmongering about the Big Move being paid for with provincewide tax revenues.