Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not if the connector buses are standard 40 foot buses (to allow for higher frequencies despite lower demand) and the T-Way buses are articulated (with close to double the capacity). With LRT, the capacity will be much higher than articulated buses.

I'm also not convinced that all of the express buses are packed prior to reaching the first T-Way station (or leaving it in the evening). In many cases that first T-Way station is a park and ride and the buses fill up with people from there. Also, the buses aren't as full near the beginning and end of rush hour, creating more room for efficiency.

A) Most of the expresses buses I see are double deckers. I'm sure some aren't, but the vast majority of double deckers in the fleet are scheduled onto those express buses (that's half the reason I've ridden them, just for the view).

B) Most people going to park and rides are probably using the spine routes as a number of parc and rides are practically only served by the 90s, and if you're going out to Nepean Woods, Riverside, Trim, Canadian Tire Centre, etc. you're running just as long a route as any of the express buses.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And?

Like I said: Winnipeg is not learning any of the hard lessons Ottawa did with bus crappid transit. Their system is being designed along much the same 1970s-80s principles.

You meant learning...

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/other/rapid-transit-route-network

It looks like they have. The buses are through routes.

Why do you think they don't?

[lrt's friend]

Yet I gather the T-way ended up being 10x over budget and twice what the LRT was estimated to cost (I don't have a reference so if anyone else can either confirm or deny this it would be appreciated). If so, the city did have more than enough money to pay for LRT, they just wanted to make it look like they couldn't.

Yes, it was over budget, but wasn't every public project way over budget in those days? It was time of poor estimates, high inflation and high interest rates. The same would have occurred with a similar LRT project. The big issue was the difficult parts. The downtown section, the Westboro part. I remember the Byron Avenue debates. And we have had those same debates more recently with a very expensive solution. We could not have avoided those difficult areas if LRT was built. Buses could work around them. LRT could not. So, LRT costs would have exploded out of control in the 1980s in comparison with the Transitways.

Hard to know for sure. The lure of rail could equally have decelerated the declining ridership. It may also have encouraged more people to live closer to downtown instead of sprawling beyond the greenbelt.

I don't believe rail in itself attracts ridership. Good service does. I doubt this would have affected many people's choices on where to live. Suburbia was already expanding very fast before we started building the Transitways.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me, given the known best practices at the time, a skytrain type of system would have been the best option for Ottawa in the 80s.

Based on what? There was only Scarborough RT up to that time, which was more or less a demonstration project.

It would have been more expensive than Transitways or LRT. A Skytrain is not well suited to surface operations and would have required tunneling through downtown from the get go. This is third rail technology requiring total security of the right of way. And it may be problematic in our climate with ice and snow build up.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Beedok

A) Most of the expresses buses I see are double deckers.

That's new.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You meant learning...

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/other/rapid-transit-route-network

It looks like they have. The buses are through routes.

Why do you think they don't?

Routes that diddle and dawdle their way around suburban neighbourhoods before jumping onto the Bus Crappid Transit road (or vice-versa) = the stupid thing that Ottawa did.

It looks like there is one, maybe two routes comparable to the 90-series of the Ottawa Transitway. The rest are glorified locals. Winnipeg is doing what Ottawa did, and in the 2040s will have the same drawn-out political fight about what to do with its 1970s technology transit system. The stage has already been set, with Winnipeg's bus crappid transit supporters already talking about how it can be converted to LRT down the road...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Routes that diddle and dawdle their way around suburban neighbourhoods before jumping onto the Bus Crappid Transit road (or vice-versa) = the stupid thing that Ottawa did.

It looks like there is one, maybe two routes comparable to the 90-series of the Ottawa Transitway. The rest are glorified locals. Winnipeg is doing what Ottawa did, and in the 2040s will have the same drawn-out political fight about what to do with its 1970s technology transit system. The stage has already been set, with Winnipeg's bus crappid transit supporters already talking about how it can be converted to LRT down the road...

So, any buses on the BRT should never leave it?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That's new.

Well, as new as the double deckers themselves are. That's where they were going more or less from the start. You only really see double deckers on other routes well outside rush hour or on weekends.

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Skytrain... This is third rail technology requiring total security of the right of way.

not necessarily there were plans for an overhead wire version at the time as well: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2107.shtml

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, it was over budget, but wasn't every public project way over budget in those days? It was time of poor estimates, high inflation and high interest rates. The same would have occurred with a similar LRT project. The big issue was the difficult parts. The downtown section, the Westboro part. I remember the Byron Avenue debates. And we have had those same debates more recently with a very expensive solution. We could not have avoided those difficult areas if LRT was built. Buses could work around them. LRT could not. So, LRT costs would have exploded out of control in the 1980s in comparison with the Transitways.



I don't believe rail in itself attracts ridership. Good service does. I doubt this would have affected many people's choices on where to live. Suburbia was already expanding very fast before we started building the Transitways.

And if ridership is the measure of success for a transit system, then the Transitway was a tremendous success. (Even if almost everyone on here hates it.)

But yes, I agree that it's outlived its usefulness. Or at least, that it was time for Ottawa to switch to rail-based transit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, any buses on the BRT should never leave it?

Not "never", but once you start cluttering it up with local-busway hybrids, as Ottawa did, the trunk routes rapidly lose their quality and value. There's no point in having supposedly frequent, trunk, "rapid" BCT routes if they get stalled in massive, crawling lines of half-empty local buses.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And if ridership is the measure of success for a transit system, then the Transitway was a tremendous success. (Even if almost everyone on here hates it.)

But yes, I agree that it's outlived its usefulness. Or at least, that it was time for Ottawa to switch to rail-based transit.

It had outlived its usefulness within less than a decade of the first busway entering into service. The downtown immobile bus lineups have been going on since the early 90s at least.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You meant learning...

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/other/rapid-transit-route-network

It looks like they have. The buses are through routes.

Why do you think they don't?

Looking at that map the actual "rapid" transitway portion of the system is actually really short and actually doesn't cover downtown. Like Ottawa, this system is at-grade in the downtown section so it will suffer the same consequences. I might actually say that this is worse than Ottawa since the "rapid" part is only on one side of the system and doesn't even reach far out, shortly after downtown you are back at-grade.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Based on what? There was only Scarborough RT up to that time, which was more or less a demonstration project.

It would have been more expensive than Transitways or LRT. A Skytrain is not well suited to surface operations and would have required tunneling through downtown from the get go. This is third rail technology requiring total security of the right of way. And it may be problematic in our climate with ice and snow build up.

It was an available technology that the Ontario government was eager to see implemented that would have created jobs in Eastern Ontario. It can get over the many obstacles (Rideau Canal, Queenway, toxic site near Lees ave, Rideau River, toxic site at hurdman, Riverside, Queenway again, St Laurent interchange) with minimal effort where the busway required massive (and costly) engineering . It is actually able to connect to buildings (St Laurent, Bayshore, Train Station, Rideau Centre, etc) in a more sensible and integrated way than the busway. It drives development in a way a busway can't. It is suitable for long-distance use (a necessity in the Ottawa area). It can be used in a much more flexible way than something on the surface can. Since it is driverless, it would have had much lower operating costs.

A tunnel is by no means mandatory. Vancouver choose to build one for the downtown segment. If Ottawa had done so it probably could have been a shorter segment than the current LRT project.

[McC]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Vancouver choose to build one for the downtown segment.

Vancouver's downtown tunnel was already there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It was an available technology that the Ontario government was eager to see implemented that would have created jobs in Eastern Ontario. It can get over the many obstacles (Rideau Canal, Queenway, toxic site near Lees ave, Rideau River, toxic site at hurdman, Riverside, Queenway again, St Laurent interchange) with minimal effort where the busway required massive (and costly) engineering . It is actually able to connect to buildings (St Laurent, Bayshore, Train Station, Rideau Centre, etc) in a more sensible and integrated way than the busway. It drives development in a way a busway can't. It is suitable for long-distance use (a necessity in the Ottawa area). It can be used in a much more flexible way than something on the surface can. Since it is driverless, it would have had much lower operating costs.

A tunnel is by no means mandatory. Vancouver choose to build one for the downtown segment. If Ottawa had done so it probably could have been a shorter segment than the current LRT project.

It is not the best solution if it is by far the most expensive one. And downtown, a subway would have been mandatory. There is no way, we would have an 'EL' from Lebreton Flats to University of Ottawa. It would have absolutely destroyed the streetscape downtown.

You notice that we are not even considering any significant elevated portions of the Confederation Line. Why? Cost and because nobody wants an elevated railway running through their neighbourhood. That would not have been an acceptable solution along Byron.

Ottawa did a lot of experimenting by going to Transitways. It was unique. There were risks. But building grade separated roads is something that was not risky. Building a skytrain with overhead wiring would have been much more risky with no implementations anywhere.

Why would we assume that something like this that would have cost the city and province billions in the 1980s instead of hundreds of millions would have ever taken place or even be advisable?

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You notice that we are not even considering any significant elevated portions of the Confederation Line. Why? Cost and because nobody wants an elevated railway running through their neighbourhood. That would not have been an acceptable solution along Byron.

depends on your definition of "significant;" Bayview, uOttawa and towards Lees, and Hurdman are all elevated.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is not the best solution if it is by far the most expensive one. And downtown, a subway would have been mandatory. There is no way, we would have an 'EL' from Lebreton Flats to University of Ottawa. It would have absolutely destroyed the streetscape downtown.

You notice that we are not even considering any significant elevated portions of the Confederation Line. Why? Cost and because nobody wants an elevated railway running through their neighbourhood. That would not have been an acceptable solution along Byron.

Ottawa did a lot of experimenting by going to Transitways. It was unique. There were risks. But building grade separated roads is something that was not risky. Building a skytrain with overhead wiring would have been much more risky with no implementations anywhere.

Why would we assume that something like this that would have cost the city and province billions in the 1980s instead of hundreds of millions would have ever taken place or even be advisable?

"Absolutely destroyed the streetscape downtown seems" like a fair bit of hyperbole. The detroit people mover (same technology, same era) runs above grade downtown. This street, for example is seems reasonably lively, people are enjoying a patio (more than they would on Slater or Albert with hundreds of buses going by). The EL in Chicago is a heavy rail technology, and hardly has the same impact on the urban fabric. But, I take your point that the politics might have required a tunnel. But even so, it would have been much cheaper than a bus tunnel (smaller, less ventilation, etc) and certainly cheaper than building a busway and ripping it up 20 years later to build a light rail system.

One of the reasons that elevated systems weren't considered (despite the recommendation from manufacturers) is that the city included criteria such as "Ability to build a nonsegregated system in low density areas " among the selection criteria, which precluded light-metro and driver-less options.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Beedok

A) Most of the expresses buses I see are double deckers. I'm sure some aren't, but the vast majority of double deckers in the fleet are scheduled onto those express buses (that's half the reason I've ridden them, just for the view).

As Uhuniau said, that is recent and the reason for it is that Albert and Slater streets have reached their maximum capacity for buses in terms of curb space at the stops. Double decker buses take up the same amount of curb space as a conventional bus, but can transport more passengers. The view is a bonus. If they didn't have to go downtown, they could choose to increase the frequency instead of increasing the capacity to provide better service.

B) Most people going to park and rides are probably using the spine routes as a number of parc and rides are practically only served by the 90s, and if you're going out to Nepean Woods, Riverside, Trim, Canadian Tire Centre, etc. you're running just as long a route as any of the express buses.

Not sure about the east end, but Baseline, Fallowfield, Eagleson, Terry Fox and Carp Rd. are all served by one or more express routes. The express buses don't stop as often once they get on the T-Way, so while the distance is the same, the travel time is shorter, so there is an incentive to ride them instead of the regular T-Way buses. They are also likely more frequent, so you won't have to wait as long for a bus.

[MalcolmTucker]

It isn't just curb space though, in rush it is curb space meter seconds. Dwell time matters. All door boarding with streetside fare payment helps a lot. I'm not sure that double deckers are superior to articulated buses due to the time needed to get people upstairs.