Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I don't think $2.1-billion for the current Ottawa LRT is expensive; it's actually a pretty cost-effective project, esp. considering a good chunk of it is actually thinly-veiled road projects.

The issue is that the 1980s-era BRT that is the foundation of the LRT project was sold as cheap-and-easy-to-convert-to-rail, which it was neither. Ottawa ought to have gone with LRT from the beginning, and not wasted so much cash or three decades of city-building.

The BRT transitway HAS proven to be relatively cheap and easy to convert to rail. The tunnel through centretown is a huge extra expense but in my estimation it's both needed and an important value-added feature. The cost of the rest of the regular conversion of the BRT to LRT is a fraction of what other cities spend to build LRT from scratch.

You don't need to look far to find strong examples of what I'm talking about. Again, I'd humbly suggest you take a quick visit down to Toronto to behold what these kinds of projects can cost without a BRT/Transitway to build from.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The BRT transitway HAS proven to be relatively cheap and easy to convert to rail. The tunnel through centretown is a huge extra expense but in my estimation it's both needed and an important value-added feature. The cost of the rest of the regular conversion of the BRT to LRT is a fraction of what other cities spend to build LRT from scratch.

You don't need to look far to find strong examples of what I'm talking about. Again, I'd humbly suggest you take a quick visit down to Toronto to behold what these kinds of projects can cost without a BRT/Transitway to build from.

Almost all of the savings have come from the fact that there is a reserved corridor. As you say, these savings are significant, but I'm not sure it would meet most people's understanding of "relatively cheap and easy to convert." They have basically had to demolish the old busway and rebuild from scratch.

[acottawa]

I wonder if they are doing test runs today. It would be interesting to see how they handle a medium-heavy snow.

[lrt's friend]

When you consider the amount of road work that became necessary and the amount of bridge reconstruction, we probably would have been better off to start building LRT from day one the way we have approached this.

We probably would have had surface rail through downtown like Calgary so the major cost now would have been the downtown tunnel. But as we are seeing, it will cost several billion to replace the Transitways. Not a bargain. We can't compare this with the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto since that is running through dense urban areas. Much of the Ottawa plan avoids dense urban areas whenever possible.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When you consider the amount of road work that became necessary and the amount of bridge reconstruction, we probably would have been better off to start building LRT from day one the way we have approached this.

That's a truism.

Of course building the ultimate Confederation Line from day one is cheaper than buying incremental things to build up to it but that's often not a feasible option.

Since buying my place in 2014, I've invested about $18K in renovations and I have another $15-ish K I want to do. I probably would have been better off to just start all those renovations all at once from the beginning rather than doing them over the course of 5 years as I'm doing but that wasn't an option for me because I didn't have the cash.

To take the argument further, a person probably would have been better off to just buy their "forever home" with enough bedrooms for all their future children right at the age of 19 after moving out of your parents' home rather than wasting all that money on rent saving up a down payment. But again, that's probably not a financially viable option for most people.

Sometimes, you have no choice but to build up incrementally over time. I'd suggest this is one of those instances.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The BRT transitway HAS proven to be relatively cheap and easy to convert to rail.

Except for the three bridges that had to pull out entirely and replace and the trench they had to widen and the segments they had to realign and the stations that couldn't be repurposed and had to be torn down and replaced (with overbuilt "architectural statements") and the infrastructure they had to build for parallel/interim bus service, but yes, other than all of it, it was cheap and easy to convert.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Much of the Ottawa plan avoids dense urban areas whenever possible.

Or, actually, all of it, other than the downtown tunnel portion. The rest of it follows the path of least resistance — also the path of least city-building potential — set in 1980-something when the Transitway alignment decisions were made.

And, as a consequence, there will be no additional urban mass transit in any urban part of Ottawa until the next century.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Sometimes, you have no choice but to build up incrementally over time. I'd suggest this is one of those instances.

Except, to extend your analogy correctly, it's more like saving up to buy your first house, buying that house, then demolishing it in situ and building a new house when you have your fifth kid, rather than making sure that your first house could be expanded modularly, without disruption, and without throwing away your investment in that first house almost entirely.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

That's a truism.

Of course building the ultimate Confederation Line from day one is cheaper than buying incremental things to build up to it but that's often not a feasible option.

Since buying my place in 2014, I've invested about $18K in renovations and I have another $15-ish K I want to do. I probably would have been better off to just start all those renovations all at once from the beginning rather than doing them over the course of 5 years as I'm doing but that wasn't an option for me because I didn't have the cash.

To take the argument further, a person probably would have been better off to just buy their "forever home" with enough bedrooms for all their future children right at the age of 19 after moving out of your parents' home rather than wasting all that money on rent saving up a down payment. But again, that's probably not a financially viable option for most people.

Sometimes, you have no choice but to build up incrementally over time. I'd suggest this is one of those instances.

I would be curious about how much Calgary-style surface light rail, or Edmonton-style underground light rail or Vancouver-style elevated light rail that Ottawa could have gotten in the 80s and 90s for the same price as the transitway. Building a busway was by no means a best practice at the time, which at the time decisions were taken only existed in Curitiba, Brazil.

[orleans_man]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

That's a truism.

Of course building the ultimate Confederation Line from day one is cheaper than buying incremental things to build up to it but that's often not a feasible option.

Since buying my place in 2014, I've invested about $18K in renovations and I have another $15-ish K I want to do. I probably would have been better off to just start all those renovations all at once from the beginning rather than doing them over the course of 5 years as I'm doing but that wasn't an option for me because I didn't have the cash.

To take the argument further, a person probably would have been better off to just buy their "forever home" with enough bedrooms for all their future children right at the age of 19 after moving out of your parents' home rather than wasting all that money on rent saving up a down payment. But again, that's probably not a financially viable option for most people.

Sometimes, you have no choice but to build up incrementally over time. I'd suggest this is one of those instances.

Have to agree with the above. In 1980 Ottawa was a city with a population around 700k, now we are pushing 1.3/1.4 million. Quite a different story and a lot more money to put towards a new solution.

I think the "easy" to convert part can be debated, but the fact that there was an established corridor with existing stations/connections is priceless and Ottawa of today is fortunate to be in the position we are in.

Once Phase 2 is completed, Ottawa should be well positioned to provide improved transit service over the coming decades...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by orleans_man

Have to agree with the above. In 1980 Ottawa was a city with a population around 700k, now we are pushing 1.3/1.4 million. Quite a different story and a lot more money to put towards a new solution.

In other words, Ottawa's metropolitan population was in the same class as Edmonton or Calgary's, as it is now.

Once Phase 2 is completed, Ottawa should be well positioned to provide improved transit service over the coming decades...

Once Phase 2 is completed, Ottawa's borrowing capacity for new mass transit projects will be exhausted for decades. There will be no improvement to transit service in the core. There is no cash, no credit, and no political capital to pay for it: it's all being spent in the suburbs.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except for the three bridges that had to pull out entirely and replace and the trench they had to widen and the segments they had to realign and the stations that couldn't be repurposed and had to be torn down and replaced (with overbuilt "architectural statements") and the infrastructure they had to build for parallel/interim bus service, but yes, other than all of it, it was cheap and easy to convert.

Most of those stations are over 20 years old. The ones from the 80s are over 30 years old. They could stand a remodel. The real challenge would have been to either find a train that would fit with the curb height, or dig the trench even deeper

Bridges were probably designed and built for buses. Trains are heavier.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Or, actually, all of it, other than the downtown tunnel portion. The rest of it follows the path of least resistance — also the path of least city-building potential — set in 1980-something when the Transitway alignment decisions were made.

And, as a consequence, there will be no additional urban mass transit in any urban part of Ottawa until the next century.

So, for the next 80 years no new transitways or LRT? REALLY!?!?!?!?!? I suspect that Phase 2 will be built in the next 10 years of the Confederation line opening.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would be curious about how much Calgary-style surface light rail, or Edmonton-style underground light rail or Vancouver-style elevated light rail that Ottawa could have gotten in the 80s and 90s for the same price as the transitway. Building a busway was by no means a best practice at the time, which at the time decisions were taken only existed in Curitiba, Brazil.

Same price? Not a chance. However, could it have been built cheaper than Transitways, then conversion to LRT? Likely. The problem is, the LRT would not be as extensive as the Transitways and the LRT/Trillium lines all are.

Originally Posted by orleans_man

Have to agree with the above. In 1980 Ottawa was a city with a population around 700k, now we are pushing 1.3/1.4 million. Quite a different story and a lot more money to put towards a new solution.

I think the "easy" to convert part can be debated, but the fact that there was an established corridor with existing stations/connections is priceless and Ottawa of today is fortunate to be in the position we are in.

Once Phase 2 is completed, Ottawa should be well positioned to provide improved transit service over the coming decades...

Either there would have been a lot of land expropriation or a lot more tunneling to get the same as what will now be built.

Instead, Ottawa gave it's transit users a more rapid transit than regular bus routes. Now it is building an even ore rapid transit route. Some may argue that the current can do it faster. However, I wonder if there was a race of the LRT from downtown to it's end, and a bus following the Transitways along the same route, having to deal with the Central Transitway, during rush hour, if the bus would still be faster. As I understand it, that Central Transitway was the problem.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Most of those stations are over 20 years old. The ones from the 80s are over 30 years old. They could stand a remodel. The real challenge would have been to either find a train that would fit with the curb height, or dig the trench even deeper

My point exactly: BRT was sold as being easy to convert to rail. That was not truthful. It was a lie.

Bridges were probably designed and built for buses. Trains are heavier.

As above: if your bridges can't carry both kinds of vehicles over their lifespan, then you didn't build BRT to be convertible. (In either event, the problem seems to have been that they weren't well built to begin with, and so RTG made the correct pre-emptive call to demolish the slowly-failing structures and replace them now, rather than later.)

So, for the next 80 years no new transitways or LRT? REALLY!?!?!?!?!? I suspect that Phase 2 will be built in the next 10 years of the Confederation line opening.

Yip. And after Phase 2 there will be no additional mass transit built *in the core* this century. Mayor Useless has said as much.

Same price? Not a chance. However, could it have been built cheaper than Transitways, then conversion to LRT? Likely. The problem is, the LRT would not be as extensive as the Transitways and the LRT/Trillium lines all are.

Certainly not with the overbuilt stations currently on the books, no.

Instead, Ottawa gave it's transit users a more rapid transit than regular bus routes. Now it is building an even ore rapid transit route.

As long as you live in the suburbs, yes.

In the urbs, not only is transit not getting any better, it's getting worse, rapidly. And with a suburban-dominated council, there is absolutely no political will, or public resources, being put towards improving transit in the core. Our transit service has, in fact, been progressively sacrificed to free up treasure and high-capacity buses for the suburbs.

Some may argue that the current can do it faster. However, I wonder if there was a race of the LRT from downtown to it's end, and a bus following the Transitways along the same route, having to deal with the Central Transitway, during rush hour, if the bus would still be faster. As I understand it, that Central Transitway was the problem.

Yes, for transit service between the suburbs and the core. But the Albert/Slater Transitway, just as the upcoming LRT, is of very limited use for trips within the older urbanized area. The rest of us - in the Glebe, in Old Ottawa South, in Vanier, in Lowertown, in residential Centretown, have to make do with rapidly-degrading bus service. No one cares about the transit-dependent and transit-supportive core: we are finding yet another way to subsidize suburban living and suburban sprawl, this time with the transit plan.

[lrt's friend]

Instead, Ottawa gave it's transit users a more rapid transit than regular bus routes. Now it is building an even ore rapid transit route. Some may argue that the current can do it faster. However, I wonder if there was a race of the LRT from downtown to it's end, and a bus following the Transitways along the same route, having to deal with the Central Transitway, during rush hour, if the bus would still be faster. As I understand it, that Central Transitway was the problem.

My observations where the trains and buses run parallel between Heron and Walkley Roads is that buses run faster, and now with the switches and passing track, much faster. The only improvement we will actually see is operations between Lebreton and Hurdman. I just hope that they have purchased enough trains and we don't have to deal with crush loads from Day 1. Edmonton screwed that up and were appealing to the public to change their travel hours when the south extension opened.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Or, actually, all of it, other than the downtown tunnel portion. The rest of it follows the path of least resistance — also the path of least city-building potential — set in 1980-something when the Transitway alignment decisions were made.

And, as a consequence, there will be no additional urban mass transit in any urban part of Ottawa until the next century.

In this I will agree. The Transitways were built mainly for suburban commuters. This is why we are now in a race to extend the line to Trim Road and CTC. To be useful at all, it needs to cover the same ground as the Transitways, otherwise the Confederation Line will actually be slower than todays Transitways when you consider the loss in service flexibility that the Transitway now offers.

As far as I am concerned, 2018 cannot come soon enough. I went downtown Friday afternoon and the service was gawd awful. It now takes double the time to get downtown and the interim measures border on useless in heavy traffic. Buses end up caught in bumper to bumper traffic. The routing between Hurdman and downtown is like a planet circling the sun. You go around and around and around. This is far worse than before the Transitways first opened back in the 80s.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

In other words, Ottawa's metropolitan population was in the same class as Edmonton or Calgary's, as it is now.

This is one of many wild assertions being thrown out here. Perhaps some actual facts might be helpful instead of just asserting things more and more loudly?

Fact: In 1981, the population of the city of Ottawa was just 295,163. Whereas in 1981, the population of Calgary was double that of Ottawa's at 592,743.

Fact: In 1980, Canada's GDP was $273.4 billion (USD) off a population of 24.6 million for an average GDP per capita of $11,118 (USD). Conversely, In 2015, Canada's GDP was $1.827 TRILLION (USD) off a population of 35.2 million for an average per capita GDP of $51,958 (USD).

Not only was Ottawa's population in 1981 NOT comparable to Calgary's (we were half their size), but we were a much much poorer city relative to Calgary (and any other city for that matter) in 2016.

Ottawa's total GDP in 1981 would have been roughly $3.3 billion (USD) whereas today our city's total GDP is somewhere on the order of ~$45 billion (USD). Even accounting for inflation, we are WAY better able to afford something like the Confederation Line today than we would have been able to afford even a fraction of something as good in the 1980s.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

This is one of many wild assertions being thrown out here. Perhaps some actual facts might be helpful instead of just asserting things more and more loudly?

Fact: In 1981, the population of the city of Ottawa was just 295,163. Whereas in 1981, the population of Calgary was double that of Ottawa's at 592,743.

Fact: In 1980, Canada's GDP was $273.4 billion (USD) off a population of 24.6 million for an average GDP per capita of $11,118 (USD). Conversely, In 2015, Canada's GDP was $1.827 TRILLION (USD) off a population of 35.2 million for an average per capita GDP of $51,958 (USD).

Not only was Ottawa's population in 1981 NOT comparable to Calgary's (we were half their size), but we were a much much poorer city relative to Calgary (and any other city for that matter) in 2016.

Ottawa's total GDP in 1981 would have been roughly $3.3 billion (USD) whereas today our city's total GDP is somewhere on the order of ~$45 billion (USD). Even accounting for inflation, we are WAY better able to afford something like the Confederation Line today than we would have been able to afford even a fraction of something as good in the 1980s.

This is not true. You are excluding Ottawa's suburbs, whereas Calgary has operated as a single city all along. Ottawa was actually significantly larger than Calgary back in 1981 whereas today metropolitan Calgary is bigger than metropolitan Ottawa due to the last oil boom.

The big issue back when the C-Train was being first planned was the oil royalties being collected in Alberta when oil prices were relatively high. This is why Calgary and Edmonton were able to build the first modern LRT systems in North America.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

This is one of many wild assertions being thrown out here. Perhaps some actual facts might be helpful instead of just asserting things more and more loudly?

Fact: In 1981, the population of the city of Ottawa was just 295,163. Whereas in 1981, the population of Calgary was double that of Ottawa's at 592,743.

Fact: In 1980, Canada's GDP was $273.4 billion (USD) off a population of 24.6 million for an average GDP per capita of $11,118 (USD). Conversely, In 2015, Canada's GDP was $1.827 TRILLION (USD) off a population of 35.2 million for an average per capita GDP of $51,958 (USD).

Not only was Ottawa's population in 1981 NOT comparable to Calgary's (we were half their size), but we were a much much poorer city relative to Calgary (and any other city for that matter) in 2016.

Ottawa's total GDP in 1981 would have been roughly $3.3 billion (USD) whereas today our city's total GDP is somewhere on the order of ~$45 billion (USD). Even accounting for inflation, we are WAY better able to afford something like the Confederation Line today than we would have been able to afford even a fraction of something as good in the 1980s.

You're only counting the former city of Ottawa. The metro area had a population of 718k, which was considerably larger than Edmonton (657k) and Calgary (593k).

Also, your GDP numbers are in US$. You're comparing a year when the currencies were at par to a year when a C$ was worth .75 cents US.

[passwordisnt123]

The facts are accurate and properly cited. Yes, the 1981 stats reflect the City of Ottawa's boundaries as they existed at that time. The fact that those stats naturally exclude the former cities of Nepean, Kanata, etc. is not an oversight. Rather, it's both intentional and accurate on my part because it goes to the whole point I'm making, which is that:

Of course building the ultimate Confederation Line from day one is cheaper than buying incremental things to build up to it but that's often not a feasible option.

Building the confederation line in 1981 (or even a shabby, no-name brand facsimile thereof) would not have been a feasible option for several reasons. Firstly, our population was much smaller. Secondly, we were a much poorer city back then because our GDP was much lower. Finally, it would not have been feasible to build because the line would have spanned several cities' municipal boundaries creating a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare. If you doubt how crippling that sort of thing can be, I invite people to read about the sad story of the Metro Vancouver transit improvements push that took years and years of negotiations to get off the ground only to have all those negotiations between cities killed by the electorate despite literally every single mayor and city council in the region supporting it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The facts are accurate and properly cited. Yes, the 1981 stats reflect the City of Ottawa's boundaries as they existed at that time. The fact that those stats naturally exclude the former cities of Nepean, Kanata, etc. is not an oversight. Rather, it's both intentional and accurate on my part because it goes to the whole point I'm making, which is that:



Building the confederation line in 1981 (or even a shabby, no-name brand facsimile thereof) would not have been a feasible option for several reasons. Firstly, our population was much smaller. Secondly, we were a much poorer city back then because our GDP was much lower. Finally, it would not have been feasible to build because the line would have spanned several cities' municipal boundaries creating a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare. If you doubt how crippling that sort of thing can be, I invite people to read about the sad story of the Metro Vancouver transit improvements push that took years and years of negotiations to get off the ground only to have all those negotiations between cities killed by the electorate despite literally every single mayor and city council in the region supporting it.

Transit was the jurisdiction of the regional government, from a jurisdictional point of view it could have built an LRT just as easily as it could build an BRT. Counting only the former city of Ottawa makes no sense in determining the regional government's capacity to implement transit projects.

Ontario had a policy at the time of paying for 75% of transit capital costs, so Ottawa would have had more ability to leverage funds than it does now. Ontario also had much lower debt ($31B in 1985, compared to $300B now)

Despite the lower GDP per capita, other cities were able to undertake significant transit projects in the 80s, including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.

Also, despite the lower GDP/capita, numerous mega projects were implemented throughout the 80s in Ottawa including the Rideau Centre, the World Exchange Plaza, the new regional government headquarters (current city hall), a huge expansion to Ottawa city hall (on Sussex), several large museums.