Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Let's stick to the topic, a truck tunnel has nothing to do with LRT and since the tunnel is an interprovincial structure the federal government would be more obliged to commit funds to it than LRT or your favourite BRT. The cost of an LRT tunnel should be less than a BRT tunnel just due to the increased ventilation and fire suppresion systems required running diesel vehicles vs electric rail vehicles.

Hum, neither the LRT tunnel or the truck tunnel are inter-provincial structures. Both are 100% within Ottawa's city limits.

But I agree with you that a LRT tunnel should be cheaper than a BRT tunnel.

[S-Man]

Hybrid247 pretty much raised every point I was going to.

Saying that we have buses now and they're fine fails to address the basic rationale for LRT, which is capacity through the core. People on both side of the ideological fence toss out phrases like 'vanity project', etc when referring to the idea, which is a great way to deflect from any nuts and bolts arguments about the actual need.

Frankly, if Ottawa had gone the way Edmonton did in the late 70s (as opposed to relegating its transit fleet to be oil dependent, even on the heels of 2 gas crises in a single decade), we'd be in better shape.

As for not being able to rewrite history - just because you can't rewrite history, doesn't mean you can't turn the page and start writing a new future. Every city that has an electric transit line started out with one line or route first (usually the hardest one first).

Arguments like "It should have been built by now" or "People will have to transfer in the interim period" just continues the status quo, and all the problems that come with it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Exactly how do achieve any of what you say? Taking away people's housing choices? Taking away even more private property rights?

No - you give them the exact opposite. If people want to develop their private property into something bigger, denser, or taller, let them.

The only thing I'd take away is the ability of the sprawl-lords to lay out crappy suburban curlicue subdivisions. Here. Here is a grid or a near-grid street pattern. You will build to this plan. You can build whatever you want on it. But you will build on this plan.

So, you would have blown away the green space along the rivers and the canal and eliminated the bike trails and places to walk your dogs.

Huh? Where do you get that?

And built highrises in the flood plains creating a multitude of disasters for our government to bail out.

Or that?

And, it is funny now what is constituted as the suburban belt. It seems to me that anything built after World War II is now the suburban belt by your standard.

Pretty much, yip.

The suburban wasteland outside of the boundaries of Holland, Carling, and the Rideau River. Frankly, we cannot roll back the clock. We cannot also change history as housing and community design is a reflection of the time in which they were built.

Then why don't Lowertown and Centretown and New Edinburgh and Sandy Hill and Hintonburg look exactly as they did in the 19th and early 20th centuries?

Because we allowed them to evolve, and continue to do so, one incremental step at a time: the same kind of incrementalism that is effectively barred in the suburbs, by their basic layout and by regulatory overlay.

Regardless of 'letting' re-urbanization, the effect is the same. We would have destroyed our older neighbourhoods

We have already destroyed them, several times over. Parts of Ottawa that were laid out in the 19th century have almost nothing left of their original form or stock.

and replaced them with a sea of asphalt and concrete

Huh? Where do you get that from?

likely with housing of very mediocre design. The vast majority of the population cannot afford to live in $1M condominiums, whether low rise or high rise.

Tell that to someone who is arguing that people should live in $1M condominiums.

However, our current environment, which doesn't allow properties to be very easily split, horizontally or vertically, makes it hard to insert apartments into existing suburban homes, let alone replace them with multi-unit dwellings, and which forces ever farther sprawl of single-family homes, separated by significant distances from mediocre retail and other non-residential spaces, is driving up the cost of living.

Build neighbourhoods that can change over time, and allow them to, and the market will be better able to meet the needs of all income classes.

Freeze neighbourhoods in time, like we've been doing since the War, and you end up with inequality and unnecessary tragedy-of-the-commons public costs.

I know which approach I'd like to see take root, in Ottawa and in all Canadian cities.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's currently at full capacity and if you haven't been downtown during rush hour recently then you haven't seen the transit nightmare that takes place. It can take a bus up to 20 minutes just to go from Lebreton to Mackenzie King.

It's been that way since I first rode OC Transpo 25 years ago, but people have selective memories in this town.

Once extensions are built to reach other parts of the city, Ottawa will have a strong backbone for its transit system that is fast and effective.

Too bad all the proposed extensions on the current plan are to extend the system to the suburbs. Meanwhile, dense, transit-supportive neighbourhoods are stuck with buses, and will be until our grandchildren are elderly, at the earliest.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Fair enough. But please realize that I understand that everything has now changed and it cannot possibly be implemented.

My whole idea was to invest as much money that directly improves service instead of rebuilding existing rapid transit. Rebuilding existing rapid transit is very expensive and delivers very limited service improvements for the dollar spent.

I have always supported the N-S plan as an affordable way to deliver LRT to all the southern suburbs. It was going affect the design of the suburbs and move us to at least a somewhat less car centric community design. I believe that this is now a lost opportunity and I expect Riverside South to simply turn into another big box dominated sprawl community. Standing alone, there would be a problem downtown, but in tandem with other ideas, this could have been the beginning of a true urban rail network that also solves the downtown problem.

I have thought and thought and thought about the downtown congestion issue and I have concluded that the most effective way to leverage our Transitway investment was to build a bus tunnel. The cost of conversion to rail is going to be enormous and conversion incomplete for decades to come. The Transitways act much like a commuter rail system offering direct service to downtown from the suburbs. Conversion, which will not be complete for decades, will create a hybrid, neither ideal for commuters or providing the best location for urban service.

A combination of a surface downtown rail line and a bus tunnel would have solved the downtown congestion issue.

The cost of these two projects would have been covered by our current $2.1 billion investment and would have delivered immediate service improvements to most everybody who uses transit to go downtown and to deliver better service to all the southern suburbs. Service improvements southward have now been deferred indefinitely.

All future money could then be allocated to expanding the rail network via Carling Avenue, Rideau-Montreal and via the Alta Vista Parkway corridor and on to the Innes Road and Orleans South Corridor.

In addition we could have invested in improvements to the cross-town rail line and use it for diesel rail service between the Kanata Business Park and the Via Rail Station. Service would be much like the O-Train. This would provide a fast cross-town connection that our current network lacks.

What this does is maintains and expands the cross city connectivity that the Transitways have created. The Confederation Line is taking us backwards in that we can no longer take transit directly from Orleans or Kanata or Barrhaven or even South Keys to downtown without having to transfer. I am talking about trunk line service. The coverage area that we are creating in 2018 will shrink dramatically and this will make downtown events a little less accessible by transit to those living beyond the coverage area. My ideas would have maintained and expanded the coverage area directly linked to downtown and would have created a more extensive rapid transit network faster.

I understand your point. The current plan does not include any new service, or at least not until the two stations on Richmond road open in 2023 (and even then, that's not a huge impact on ridership).

The N/S rail wasn't a bad idea on it's own, but I think that the lack of consideration of the Downtown was its downfall. But again, we were in too deep by December 2006, and I think it should have been built despite the flaws.

Bus tunnel; it would have been a more affordable way to improve E/W transit and we would have seen the full effect from day one (as opposed to a rail line built in 3-4 phases in 2-3 decades). But I'm not convinced spending a billion dollars on something that will only increase capacity by a fraction (maybe 1/4 increase) is the best way to go. The Confederation line more than doubles the capacity of the system, sustaining transit capacity for the next 60 years+.

New lines; Carling, for me at least, is not a huge priority. The LRT plans (what I call classic LRT like Calgary) will be good for intensification and cleaning up the corridor, but I don't see it as essential any time soon. It can wait 30 years. But the Bank-Rideau-Montreal corridor should have been prioritized before anything else. With Lansdowne Park, mega intensification, the CFB plans, the start of a new dawn of Vanier, the revitalization of Rideau Street, I think a subway should strongly be considered today. And maybe when they see the mess that will be caused by Lansdowne, they might actually realize this.

So I understand where you are coming from on most of your issues, but we still have varied opinions.

[MalcolmTucker]

"The current plan does not include any new service"

Who cares, once the shovels are in the ground, there is plenty of time to advocate for $ saved to go to better feeder services.

[lrt's friend]

I think it is time that you started to accept reality. Whether you like it or not the LRT is going ahead and yes it is not perfect but it will be much better in the long run. All your complaints about LRT are not going to change anything at this point. Maybe when it is finished you can still keep on riding the bus if you wish while the rest of us ride the LRT.

I think you should get a reality check. Some one asked me for my 'dream' plan and I gave it so they could see where I was coming from. I even stated that I know it can't be implemented. How much more realistic can I be? My frustration is with the cost and the time it is taking to build it out. I will not significantly benefit from it. Neither will any of my neighbours. I have said it before, the closest station will be at Bank and Queen. I live several kms to the south. I only rarely travel downtown so I really won't have the opportunity to use it and even on those rare occasions it will be for a couple of stops. Meanwhile other plans that would be more beneficial to me and my neighbours have been deferred, cut back or mothballed. How do you expect me to react? Nevertheless, I am sure that many living particularly in the east end will benefit from it, but I expect that the benefits for even them have been overstated. 2018 will tell that tale.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

"The current plan does not include any new service"

Who cares, once the shovels are in the ground, there is plenty of time to advocate for $ saved to go to better feeder services.

I am not holding my breathe on that. There will be a lot of debt to pay off.

[lrt's friend]

Too bad all the proposed extensions on the current plan are to extend the system to the suburbs. Meanwhile, dense, transit-supportive neighbourhoods are stuck with buses, and will be until our grandchildren are elderly, at the earliest.

I have been saying this since the current proposal was first made in 2008. The outcome inside the Greenbelt is that there is really little new service and what was included will be the first thing to be deferred or cancelled.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I understand your point. The current plan does not include any new service, or at least not until the two stations on Richmond road open in 2023 (and even then, that's not a huge impact on ridership).

The N/S rail wasn't a bad idea on it's own, but I think that the lack of consideration of the Downtown was its downfall. But again, we were in too deep by December 2006, and I think it should have been built despite the flaws.

Bus tunnel; it would have been a more affordable way to improve E/W transit and we would have seen the full effect from day one (as opposed to a rail line built in 3-4 phases in 2-3 decades). But I'm not convinced spending a billion dollars on something that will only increase capacity by a fraction (maybe 1/4 increase) is the best way to go. The Confederation line more than doubles the capacity of the system, sustaining transit capacity for the next 60 years+.

New lines; Carling, for me at least, is not a huge priority. The LRT plans (what I call classic LRT like Calgary) will be good for intensification and cleaning up the corridor, but I don't see it as essential any time soon. It can wait 30 years. But the Bank-Rideau-Montreal corridor should have been prioritized before anything else. With Lansdowne Park, mega intensification, the CFB plans, the start of a new dawn of Vanier, the revitalization of Rideau Street, I think a subway should strongly be considered today. And maybe when they see the mess that will be caused by Lansdowne, they might actually realize this.

So I understand where you are coming from on most of your issues, but we still have varied opinions.

Of course, we will all have our own opinions. The problem with subways is that they are so very expensive. Even a city much bigger like Toronto has a very hard time funding new subways. Thank you for a fair assessment of my ideas realizing that we all see things a little differently.

[JM1]

The interesting thing is that cities of the same size as Ottawa in Europe do have extensive subway systems -- Vienna for example.

Of course, Vienna has a history and density that Ottawa is not blessed with, but the fact is that they made an investment.

Toronto could have done the same in the 1960s and 70s, although at that point it seemed too expensive. Had they decided to build an elaborate subway system then, at great cost, they would today have a much different landscape.

Ottawa is much smaller than Toronto, but one day it may be the same size Toronto is now.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Of course, we will all have our own opinions. The problem with subways is that they are so very expensive. Even a city much bigger like Toronto has a very hard time funding new subways. Thank you for a fair assessment of my ideas realizing that we all see things a little differently.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by JM1

The interesting thing is that cities of the same size as Ottawa in Europe do have extensive subway systems -- Vienna for example.

Of course, Vienna has a history and density that Ottawa is not blessed with, but the fact is that they made an investment.

Toronto could have done the same in the 1960s and 70s, although at that point it seemed too expensive. Had they decided to build an elaborate subway system then, at great cost, they would today have a much different landscape.

Ottawa is much smaller than Toronto, but one day it may be the same size Toronto is now.

Toronto in 1950 was not much bigger (or even smaller?) than Ottawa is today I believe.

No city in North America anywhere near Ottawa's size has a subway though. Some similar sized cities in the US don't even have much of a transit system at all...

[McC]

Buffalo? Cleveland and Cinci (abandoned) are about 50% larger in terms of metro populations... Going back in time, Metro Van wasn't much bigger population-wise than Ottawa-Gatineau is today when they built the Expo Line (1.4M).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Toronto in 1950 was not much bigger (or even smaller?) than Ottawa is today I believe.

When the Toronto subway project began, it had about the same population as Ottawa does now, though much denser.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

Buffalo? Cleveland and Cinci (abandoned) are about 50% larger in terms of metro populations... Going back in time, Metro Van wasn't much bigger population-wise than Ottawa-Gatineau is today when they built the Expo Line (1.4M).

Never knew about the Cinci tunnel. Why doo they want to build streetcars when they could complete the subway (and extend it as surface LRT outside the 3 km tunnel)?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Never knew about the Cinci tunnel. Why doo they want to build streetcars when they could complete the subway (and extend it as surface LRT outside the 3 km tunnel)?

COST! Rochester New York also had an operating subway that they abandoned in the 1950s. Basically, declining ridership killed it. Part of it was converted into an expressway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Toronto in 1950 was not much bigger (or even smaller?) than Ottawa is today I believe.

No city in North America anywhere near Ottawa's size has a subway though. Some similar sized cities in the US don't even have much of a transit system at all...

The world was a lot different in the early 1950s. A lot of people in the inner city still did not own cars. Toronto also built the Yonge line with war surpluses. Ottawa lost its war surpluses because the Ottawa Electric Railway was private and the surpluses were taxed for the war effort. The TTC was public and allowed to keep their surpluses.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McC

Buffalo? Cleveland and Cinci (abandoned) are about 50% larger in terms of metro populations... Going back in time, Metro Van wasn't much bigger population-wise than Ottawa-Gatineau is today when they built the Expo Line (1.4M).

Only a small portion of the Expo Line is a subway. Subways are more expensive than elevated rail lines.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

COST! Rochester New York also had an operating subway that they abandoned in the 1950s. Basically, declining ridership killed it. Part of it was converted into an expressway.

And ridership I figure. According to Wikipedia, the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority has a daily ridership of only 63,900. Miniscule compared to Ottawa's 300-400,000.They have two other transit companies, but don't provide ridership numbers.

BTW, anybody know the STO's daily ridership?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Only a small portion of the Expo Line is a subway. Subways are more expensive than elevated rail lines.

Three underground stations on the original line, just like Ottawa (unless we count St-Laurent). I believe they used an existing tunnel to build it though. Nevertheless, Vancouver's Sky Train and Ottawa's ORT have a very similar concept where we try to build the most affordable system while keeping it fully grade separated as opposed to Montreal where the Metro is 100% underground.