The future of Ottawa's Transit

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I though we were all special snowflakes...

But on a more serious note, I think that a Hull-Ottawa connection under the river would transform the downtown-to-downtown dynamic, tying them much, much closer together. As it is, it's too far to walk, too close to drive and the bus service between the two is too unreliable for the distance (no one wants to wait 10 minutes for a 5 minute ride).

I hope you like the seemingly never ending escalators. To get under the river and get close enough to a location downtown would really be a challenge.

It's what happens when your downtown is on a cliff.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Lots of buses take "forever" - I'm not clear why bank street qualifies for special snowflake status.

• Provides a North-South line to accompany the (poorly planned) N-S Trillium line.
• Connects Hull with Downtown Ottawa, fixing a current hole in transit in the City.
• Connects Downtown with southern Transitway at Billings, bypassing Hurdman.
• Allows for further densification of Bank street. Would be close enough to effect future development of Elgin.
• Allows for LRT connection to Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Because those users are special snowflakes.

Productive post.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

But on a more serious note, I think that a Hull-Ottawa connection under the river would transform the downtown-to-downtown dynamic, tying them much, much closer together. As it is, it's too far to walk, too close to drive and the bus service between the two is too unreliable for the distance (no one wants to wait 10 minutes for a 5 minute ride).

Indeed. Better connections between the two would help alleviate a lot of surface traffic across the bridges as well as tying in more users to Confederation.

[lrt's friend]

The Hull side would have to connect to the south end of the Rapibus corridor for eventual conversion. Then it becomes really useful. Also, we can then leave the Trillium Line as what it really is, the Carleton student train and a downtown bypass.

We are really going to start flushing money down the toilet when we start extending the Trillium Line as a crappy second class route with too many transfers.

A Bank Street subway that continues on the surface south of Billings Bridge, could easily be branched to the airport and still provide very good service in the south tier of the city. We can then finally build the route properly according to the Riverside South community plan. Furthermore, extending the route from Billings probably won't cost a lot more (if any at all) to properly extend the Trillium Line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Don't forget that you have to go under the 100 feet of sawdust sludge in the bottom of the Ottawa River.

No need t go under the river. There is a giant cliff on the Ottawa side. The train could come out of it and onto a bridge. On the Hull side, it could run along the riverfront until its underground again, looping past the museum and back towards Place du Portage.

Originally Posted by acottawa

2 billion-ish seems like a lot to spend to replace 1-2 local bus routes.

It wouldn't just replace "1-2 local bus routes." Ignoring the fact that neither the 1 nor 7 are "local" routes, it would serve all of Ottawa South (along with Landsdowne Park and potentially the airport). Neither the southern transtway nor the trillium line are good routes downtown. Those routes were chosen not because they were good but because they were cheap (along old rail lines). At least the trillium line serves Carleton (which I would argue is the main reason it is successful despite not going downtown).

Once completed, the southern transtway north of Billings Bridge would still be used by the proposed baseline BRT as a crosstown route and the trillium line would still provide great access to Carleton (and the new Civic hospital campus).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JHikka

• Provides a North-South line to accompany the (poorly planned) N-S Trillium line.
• Connects Hull with Downtown Ottawa, fixing a current hole in transit in the City.
• Connects Downtown with southern Transitway at Billings, bypassing Hurdman.
• Allows for further densification of Bank street. Would be close enough to effect future development of Elgin.
• Allows for LRT connection to Lansdowne.

Many people noted that Landsdowne was nowhere near mass transit. That apparently wasn't a concern to its proponents. It certainly would have been cheaper to bring a football stadium to transit than transit to a football stadium.

I am unclear why there is a particular advantage to building a subway to billing's bridge to provide an interprovincial connection. Certainly there are far fewer major destinations along bank than along the confederation line. Also, bank does not align well with the Gatineau street network (and points directly at a toilet paper factory).

Why is there a need to bypass hurdman to get from billings bridge to downtown? That is a 5 minute bus ride and a five minute LRT ride.

The neighbourhoods along bank are already pretty high density. I don't think there would be political support to turn the glebe and OOS into high rise communities.

I am also unclear why there is a need for another N-S line. Upgrading trillium would be a fraction the cost of a bank street subway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Many people noted that Landsdowne was nowhere near mass transit. That apparently wasn't a concern to its proponents. It certainly would have been cheaper to bring a football stadium to transit than transit to a football stadium.
I am unclear why there is a particular advantage to building a subway to billing's bridge to provide an interprovincial connection. Certainly there are far fewer major destinations along bank than along the confederation line. Also, bank does not align well with the Gatineau street network (and points directly at a toilet paper factory).

Why is there a need to bypass hurdman to get from billings bridge to downtown? That is a 5 minute bus ride and a five minute LRT ride.

The neighbourhoods along bank are already pretty high density. I don't think there would be political support to turn the glebe and OOS into high rise communities.

I am also unclear why there is a need for another N-S line. Upgrading trillium would be a fraction the cost of a bank street subway.

What I bolded offered no solution to the problem at Lansdowne. This was discussed to death but the cost of an entirely new stadium would have been higher and we would still have had a dilapidated Lansdowne Park and no money to do anything about. The transit question needs to be separate. I think we are being foolish if we try to build everything around one transit line. There needs to be more balance.

Regarding alternatives to a Bank Street subway, neither Hurdman or Bayview provide a direct route into downtown from the south end of the city. Both routes add 10 minutes to travel times and neither provide direct service into downtown.

There is also clearly no appetite to upgrade the Trillium line along with the certain major shutdown that will accompany it.

I have never heard of such logic that we should not build transit where there is already density. That has been our habit in the past when we were dealing with buses. It is time to start thinking about a truly 'urban' transit system where service is focused on our main streets. Our older urban areas and particularly the retail streets will never flourish if we continue to build transit away from them.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What I bolded offered no solution to the problem at Lansdowne. This was discussed to death but the cost of an entirely new stadium would have been higher and we would still have had a dilapidated Lansdowne Park and no money to do anything about. The transit question needs to be separate. I think we are being foolish if we try to build everything around one transit line. There needs to be more balance.

Regarding alternatives to a Bank Street subway, neither Hurdman or Bayview provide a direct route into downtown from the south end of the city. Both routes add 10 minutes to travel times and neither provide direct service into downtown.

There is also clearly no appetite to upgrade the Trillium line along with the certain major shutdown that will accompany it.

I have never heard of such logic that we should not build transit where there is already density. That has been our habit in the past when we were dealing with buses. It is time to start thinking about a truly 'urban' transit system where service is focused on our main streets. Our older urban areas and particularly the retail streets will never flourish if we continue to build transit away from them.

I didn't say we shouldn't build transit where there is already density, I said that transit wouldn't lead to a significant increase in density in historic neighbourhoods already close to the density that would be politically palatable.

I would think a shutdown of the trillium line for construction would be disruptive than a 6+ year subway project under bank.

Not sure I follow you on the transit times. If the proposed subway is built people would have to disembark at Billings and then transfer to the subway. That just moves the transfer point from hurdman to billings and saves maybe 2 km (assuming the final destination is on bank). That is maybe a 2 minute difference. Hardly seems worth it to spend 2 billion to save 2 minutes.

I'm just saying the proponents of Landsdowne insisted that a lack of rapid transit was not an obstacle so it hardly seems justifiable to spend a huge amount of money on a subway if in fact this was just a Greenberg bait/switch.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I didn't say we shouldn't build transit where there is already density, I said that transit wouldn't lead to a significant increase in density in historic neighbourhoods already close to the density that would be politically palatable.

I would think a shutdown of the trillium line for construction would be disruptive than a 6+ year subway project under bank.

Not sure I follow you on the transit times. If the proposed subway is built people would have to disembark at Billings and then transfer to the subway. That just moves the transfer point from hurdman to billings and saves maybe 2 km (assuming the final destination is on bank). That is maybe a 2 minute difference. Hardly seems worth it to spend 2 billion to save 2 minutes.

I'm just saying the proponents of Landsdowne insisted that a lack of rapid transit was not an obstacle so it hardly seems justifiable to spend a huge amount of money on a subway if in fact this was just a Greenberg bait/switch.

It would not make sense to end the subway at Billings. South of that, it would run on the surface via the Southeast Transitway and replace any Trillium Line extension. The result would better serve everybody in the south end including the airport.

The reason for building a Bank Street subway is not specifically to serve Lansdowne Park. It just happens to be on the route and it is a transit destination. While there would be some pressure to intensify along Bank Street as result of a subway, this is already happening. I see the main point of intensification will be at Billings Bridge, which is already planned. The current transit plan does not support that intensification very well.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

2 billion-ish seems like a lot to spend to replace 1-2 local bus routes.

It seems like a bargain to get people who live in the core moving around as fast as suburban residents are accustomed to, or will be soon.

Local transit within the older core neighbourhoods is atrocious, and no one at the city gives a —.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I hope you like the seemingly never ending escalators. To get under the river and get close enough to a location downtown would really be a challenge.

It's what happens when your downtown is on a cliff.

Or they'd just build the first/last station in downtown Ottawa well back of the river, like at Somerset or some such.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Lots of buses take "forever" - I'm not clear why bank street qualifies for special snowflake status.

Downtown routes take a special kind of forever, but as the past couple decades show, downtown residents are just cash cows to be milked for the benefit of the suburbs, whether through taxes or transit revenues.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Many people noted that Landsdowne was nowhere near mass transit. That apparently wasn't a concern to its proponents. It certainly would have been cheaper to bring a football stadium to transit than transit to a football stadium.

It's not cheap to add additional bus capacity to Landsdowne, and there have been some tentative steps in that direction, but the city is generally too cheap to add capacity when it's really needed, resulting in crappy local service for people who use the Bank Street routes in their daily lives, and have to compete for space with special events passengers.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Our older urban areas and particularly the retail streets will never flourish if we continue to build transit away from them.

And we'll never have that transit as long as Toronto gets better funding arrangements from the Province of Toronto than Ottawa does from Ontario, as long as Ottawans are too cheap to pay for anything, and as long as our mass transit plan is focussed entirely on serving far-flung, low-density post-war suburbs with declining populations, as the current plans do.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It seems like a bargain to get people who live in the core moving around as fast as suburban residents are accustomed to, or will be soon.

Local transit within the older core neighbourhoods is atrocious, and no one at the city gives a —.

None of the core neighbourhoods along bank have high levels of transit usage (23% in centretown - and a large chunk of centretown is closer to the confederation line than it would be to a Bank subway - 17% in the Glebe, 20% in OOS: compared to 28% in "Central" Orleans). All three neighbourhoods have strong walking cultures, which is part of the reason why people pay a huge premium to live there. Those that do use transit frequently often have mobility issues and would not be advantaged by having longer walks to stops spaced at subway distances. Moreover, the city share of funding such a project would fall disproportionately on residents of central neighbourhoods that pay higher property taxes. The primary beneficiaries of such a system would be suburbanites looking for a shortcut to/from downtown.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by acottawa

None of the core neighbourhoods along bank have high levels of transit usage (23% in centretown - and a large chunk of centretown is closer to the confederation line than it would be to a Bank subway - 17% in the Glebe, 20% in OOS: compared to 28% in "Central" Orleans). All three neighbourhoods have strong walking cultures, which is part of the reason why people pay a huge premium to live there. Those that do use transit frequently often have mobility issues and would not be advantaged by having longer walks to stops spaced at subway distances. Moreover, the city share of funding such a project would fall disproportionately on residents of central neighbourhoods that pay higher property taxes. The primary beneficiaries of such a system would be suburbanites looking for a shortcut to/from downtown.

As someone who lived in an apartment in the Glebe for a few years and regularly rode OC Transpo, I think you would see a big jump in Transit usage by creating better service on Bank St.

As Uhuniau has indicated, the 1 and the 7 are such terribly slow routes that if you wanted to go from the Glebe to basically anywhere in Centretown (or vice versa) you were better off walking, even in winter, since the combined wait time/trip time would equal your walking time.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

None of the core neighbourhoods along bank have high levels of transit usage (23% in centretown - and a large chunk of centretown is closer to the confederation line than it would be to a Bank subway - 17% in the Glebe, 20% in OOS: compared to 28% in "Central" Orleans). All three neighbourhoods have strong walking cultures, which is part of the reason why people pay a huge premium to live there. Those that do use transit frequently often have mobility issues and would not be advantaged by having longer walks to stops spaced at subway distances. Moreover, the city share of funding such a project would fall disproportionately on residents of central neighbourhoods that pay higher property taxes. The primary beneficiaries of such a system would be suburbanites looking for a shortcut to/from downtown.

A Bank Street subway would benefit both urban and suburban residents by providing faster service on a sometimes very congested corridor. For urban residents, this will re-enforce the development of a transit culture.

Clearly, the greatest need is on Bank and Rideau/Montreal Road. We shouldn't get so mixed up on whether it is urban or suburban residents who benefit the most. If we can serve both well, then we will have a successful transit line with good ridership.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Moreover, the city share of funding such a project would fall disproportionately on residents of central neighbourhoods that pay higher property taxes. The primary beneficiaries of such a system would be suburbanites looking for a shortcut to/from downtown.

i'm pretty sure every property in the city pays property taxes. I know I do, and they are being used to fund capital mass-transit projects out into the suburbs.

Absolutely nothing is being done to improve transit within the core. Nothing.

And perhaps the (slightly lower and within the margin of error for the household survey) usage of transit in core neighbourhoods has something to do with the fact that local transit in the core — so hard. I know when I lived in the Glebe, my trips were often displaced to walking from busing simply because it would end up being more time-effective to walk a mile or more than to wait for the bus. It should not be thus on a major urban main street like Bank, but it is not at all rare to "beat the bus" on foot, even over quite long distances during periods of relatively high theoretical service levels.

Something is fundamentally broken with local transit in the core. But no one cares.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And perhaps the (slightly lower and within the margin of error for the household survey) usage of transit in core neighbourhoods has something to do with the fact that local transit in the core — so hard. I know when I lived in the Glebe, my trips were often displaced to walking from busing simply because it would end up being more time-effective to walk a mile or more than to wait for the bus. It should not be thus on a major urban main street like Bank, but it is not at all rare to "beat the bus" on foot, even over quite long distances during periods of relatively high theoretical service levels.

I think that is true, but I'm not sure that discouraging walking is a goal the city should have. Even if the city wanted to reduce walking, I'm not sure a subway would be effective in advancing this goal. Subways (particularly modern ones ) usually have their stations pretty far apart (most Canada Line stations in downtown Vancouver are 1-2 km apart, Eglinton stations are at least 750m apart). A bank street subway would be unlikely to have more than 1 stop per neighbourhood.

[FFX-ME]

Yea, and the Glebe is only about 1km long and 2.5km from the confederation line.

I think a better solution may be a sort of bypass from the Trillium line to Hurdman going through the Glebe or just a ROW bus or streetcar route.

[FFX-ME]

Just to illustrate this "issue" people keep obsessing with the picture below shows Urban Ottawa's footprint with the Glebe in red and the business district in green. That doesn't seem like a huge transportation hurdle. Like many of the people have said it's walkable. 2.5 km is no big deal, I walk that every day to get to work.



More important "inner" areas to provide transit to would be the Northeast and the Carling areas which could be served with a single east-west streetcar line that could also go through the Glebe. A part of that line is already in the masterplan.