Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

For the benefit of those who don't remember the original - lost - plan, can someone provide a thumbnail sketch of it?

It's in this page.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186118

The other planned lines were even worse as they were in the middle of nowhere or ran as streetcars.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I maybe rare on here. But I supported the cancellation. And I think the Confed Line is far better. The old plan wouldn't have done much to relieve the core. Would have had less ridership. And with no tunnel, would have been a long term disaster.

I don't get the mentality, "Well something would have gotten built." That plan would have seriously screwed up further transit development down the road. Especially in the core.

I too supported the cancellation of the former North-South LRT plan in 2006.

My issue with the plan was that the train and buses would operate together on the same transit lane. Furthermore, the LRT stops along Albert/Slater would have been:
- Between Bay and Lyon
- At Bank
- Between O'Connor and Metcalfe

And if I remember correctly, the existing bus stop along Albert/Slater would have maintained its location (Metcalfe, Bank, Kent, Bay) in conjunction with the new LRT stops. which would have interfered with bus operations as buses and trains would operate in the same lane together.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's in this page.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186118

The other planned lines were even worse as they were in the middle of nowhere or ran as streetcars.

Yes, routes down Carling and Montreal Road were in the middle of nowhere. Running trains along the cross town railway is idea that has come up repeatedly and is now completely off the radar at the official level.

Regardless, I am sure that plan would have been significantly modified especially downtown.

As it stands, we are not building for ridership growth. We are strictly maintaining the status quo, switching buses for trains but still trying to attract the exact same ridership base. This may change eventually but it is still a long way off.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

For the benefit of those who don't remember the original - lost - plan, can someone provide a thumbnail sketch of it?

Double tracked and electrified current O train and added extensions to Barrhaven Town Centre to the south and extended via an on street tram to uOttawa station via downtown with a stop in LeBreton.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Double tracked and electrified current O train and added extensions to Barrhaven Town Centre to the south and extended via an on street tram to uOttawa station via downtown with a stop in LeBreton.

That's a pretty good 33 word summary.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, routes down Carling and Montreal Road were in the middle of nowhere. Running trains along the cross town railway is idea that has come up repeatedly and is now completely off the radar at the official level.

Regardless, I am sure that plan would have been significantly modified especially downtown.

As it stands, we are not building for ridership growth. We are strictly maintaining the status quo, switching buses for trains but still trying to attract the exact same ridership base. This may change eventually but it is still a long way off.

I specifically said OR RAN AS STREETCARS, which was the case for these two streets.

[ars]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We lost 10 years and $100M and growing. Our alternative for the south end of the city is third rate. You are assuming that the original plan would have been the end. It was always considered to be a starting point. An east-west line would have been built more or less on the same schedule as we are building today. A downtown tunnel would have been inevitable. The original project would have proven its need. At least the south route would have been connected to downtown, which will never happen the way we are going and lower ridership is inevitable.

We did not need to choose between north-south and east-west. We could have had both. As it stands, the north-south route is simply a student train and it will remain that way.

I agree, I like the Confederation Line, but I think the original plan would've been an excellent starting point(and would've had a connection at Lebreton, which I think the current LRT is sorely lacking). O'Brien set this city back more than a decade with his idiotic decision IMO.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I specifically said OR RAN AS STREETCARS, which was the case for these two streets.

We will never know the specifics of those plans since the EA's were cancelled. If the streetcars were run in separate lanes or in the centre median, it would still have been a substantial improvement over the status quo.

[lrt's friend]

I think another thing we fail to consider is the loss that we took because exchange rates were much better in 2006. We have probably lost a further 30% on that alone because we didn't build in 2006.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As it stands, we are not building for ridership growth. We are strictly maintaining the status quo, switching buses for trains but still trying to attract the exact same ridership base. This may change eventually but it is still a long way off.

Who says there isn't any ridership growth potential in Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven (and point in between)? Besides, the primary purpose of LRT is to increase capacity where the existing infrastructure cannot meet the demand. Building a 12,000 passenger per hour LRT system to where the current demand for transit is small doesn't make sense. You start by adding bus routes and improving transit priority measures (be they bus lanes or busways) to build demand. Once the demand is there, then you consider switching to LRT. This isn't Field of Dreams here.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Who says there isn't any ridership growth potential in Orleans, Kanata and Barrhaven (and point in between)?

The only population growth happening in those areas is by new builds; existing neighbourhoods are largely declining in population, as is the case with post-war suburban "communities" across North America as empty nests and other demographic trends kick in with a vengeance.

The only other sources for ridership growth in the suburbs, then, will come from getting people out of cars, which is not going to happen given the layouts of these suburban "communities", both from street-topology and land-use perspectives, or from retrofetting non-residential uses into these "communities", which is an uphill slog in a culture of rampant NIMBYism and aversion to anything remotely urban.

Besides, the primary purpose of LRT is to increase capacity where the existing infrastructure cannot meet the demand.

In which case, a largely-underground rail line to serve woefully underserved urban communities should take priority over suburban areas that are able to be served by bus crappid transit: what very little transit infrastructure exists in the core is utterly incapable of meeting the demand, yet the city is doing sfa about it.

[acottawa]

"Urban" Ottawa has a density problem.

Most of the neighbourhoods people identify as "urban" are streetcar suburbs or postwar car-based suburbs with densities in the 4000-6000 people per square km range. Without park and ride and feeder routes, it is hard to get enough asses to fill seats on any kind of mass transit system. Since Ottawa also has a pretty effective NIMBY-industrial-complex, there is little prospect of this changing.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The only population growth happening in those areas is by new builds; existing neighbourhoods are largely declining in population, as is the case with post-war suburban "communities" across North America as empty nests and other demographic trends kick in with a vengeance.

The only other sources for ridership growth in the suburbs, then, will come from getting people out of cars, which is not going to happen given the layouts of these suburban "communities", both from street-topology and land-use perspectives, or from retrofetting non-residential uses into these "communities", which is an uphill slog in a culture of rampant NIMBYism and aversion to anything remotely urban.

And Riverside South and south Barrhaven (the destination of the 2006 plan) are different???

In which case, a largely-underground rail line to serve woefully underserved urban communities should take priority over suburban areas that are able to be served by bus crappid transit: what very little transit infrastructure exists in the core is utterly incapable of meeting the demand, yet the city is doing sfa about it.

If those woefully under-served urban communities generate enough riders to utilize a 12,000 passenger per hour LRT system, then I agree. That is equivalent to over 120 high capacity buses an hour or a bus every 20-30 seconds. Even if they currently have 1/4 of that (a bus every 2 minutes) to leave lots of room for growth, it would make sense. I'm not sure many do though.

Optimally we would have had the LRT follow Rideau to N. River Road but that would have doubled the length of the tunnel, which is most likely the single most expensive portion of the Confederation line. We probably would have ended up with a line from N. River Rd. to Pimisi station instead. They would have then built a giant transit exchange those stations to re-route all of the suburban express buses to connect to the line. Not so bad at Pimisi, but at N. River Rd the express buses would have to run up Vanier Parkway to connect to the LRT until the line could be extended to somewhere more convenient.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

"Urban" Ottawa has a density problem.

Most of the neighbourhoods people identify as "urban" are streetcar suburbs

And? Most of Toronto and Montreal near TTC/Metro stations are former streetcar suburbs, too.

Without park and ride and feeder routes, it is hard to get enough asses to fill seats on any kind of mass transit system.

Which is why we need to do a better job of building transit to and from where the people are - denser and more diverse neighbourhoods - and not where they aren't - crappy, low-density, awfully-laid-out post-war garbage suburbs.

Since Ottawa also has a pretty effective NIMBY-industrial-complex, there is little prospect of this changing.

The Montreal-Rideau corridor already has surface, non-BRT bus ridership of a level that is screaming out for a permanent, grade-separated solution... one that is not going to happen this century or next because all the cash and debt will be going towards extending LRT to declining suburbs.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Optimally we would have had the LRT follow Rideau to N. River Road but that would have doubled the length of the tunnel, which is most likely the single most expensive portion of the Confederation line. We probably would have ended up with a line from N. River Rd. to Pimisi station instead. They would have then built a giant transit exchange those stations to re-route all of the suburban express buses to connect to the line. Not so bad at Pimisi, but at N. River Rd the express buses would have to run up Vanier Parkway to connect to the LRT until the line could be extended to somewhere more convenient.

And instead we made the political decision to condemn the urban core to have inferior surface bus transit for the next 150 or so years, in order to placate the politically-almighty suburbs, their aversion to taxes, to spending money downtown, and their boomer-generation sense of entitlement.

Make no mistake: by not building a mass transit system that actually serves the core neighbourhoods outside the business district and a few other locations ancillary to serving the core, we have set back urban development, design, and reinvention in Ottawa, relative to the other five or six largest cities in Canada, for the next three generations AT LEAST. This is especially the case east of the Rideau Centre, which could use some investment and vision, but won't get it as long as suburban numpties like Watson are in charge.

[roger1818]

One curious thing I noticed. While Alstom's brochure on the Citadis Spirit says it has a maximum speed of "65mph (105 km/h)"ref, OC Transpo is saying that the Confederation Line will operate "with speeds of up to 80 km/h" ref. Is this because in Stage 1 the stations will be too close for the trains to get up to speed, or are there other reasons why they won't be operating at the vehicle's maximum speed?

I thought 100 km/h was going to be slow for trains running beside the 417, but 80 km/h is ridiculous as cars will be flying past the train. It is also a further argument for not extending beyond the Greenbelt as it will be slower than the buses it is replacing. In the core, 80 km/h is plenty fast.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I maybe rare on here. But I supported the cancellation. And I think the Confed Line is far better. The old plan wouldn't have done much to relieve the core. Would have had less ridership. And with no tunnel, would have been a long term disaster.

I don't get the mentality, "Well something would have gotten built." That plan would have seriously screwed up further transit development down the road. Especially in the core.

I agree, and I think you're not as rare as you might think. However, every time this point gets brought up, there is a long circular argument about it and I find it's better to agree to disagree.

I could see some value in the 2006 design if they had built the Confederation line as well. However, knowing Ottawa politics, this probably would not have happened and if those were the two options I would go with the Confederation Line every time.

[lrt's friend]

I really think the likelihood of building a subway down Montreal Road is next to zero in the next 100 years. There is simply not enough ridership there to fill a subway with the Confederation Line already built. The only hope of it being built was in place of Confederation Line and it would require the Orleans ridership catchment to make it work. That opportunity has now passed and was never considered. The only hope I see is for a semi-segregated streetcar that does not require enormous trains and huge expenditures.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And? Most of Toronto and Montreal near TTC/Metro stations are former streetcar suburbs, too.

The Montreal-Rideau corridor already has surface, non-BRT bus ridership of a level that is screaming out for a permanent, grade-separated solution... one that is not going to happen this century or next because all the cash and debt will be going towards extending LRT to declining suburbs.

Toronto and Montreal have a lot more density and fewer breaks in density for greenspace.

Most of the Montreal-Rideau Corridor is served by only one bus (the 12) which comes about 9 times an hour in rush hour. Even if every single bus is an artic loaded to crush capacity, it would be less than 1000 pax/hr. A permanent, grade separated solution would be about 90% empty in rush hour. Probably west of Cobourg a grade separated solution might be justified, but I suspect most users of the 7, 12, 14 and 18 would not want to make an extra transfer at Cobourg for 1km of grade-separated travel.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I really think the likelihood of building a subway down Montreal Road is next to zero in the next 100 years. There is simply not enough ridership there to fill a subway with the Confederation Line already built. The only hope of it being built was in place of Confederation Line and it would require the Orleans ridership catchment to make it work. That opportunity has now passed and was never considered.

Agreed. The only thing is for this routing, we wouldn't be able to build it out to a convenient transfer location initially, so the buses from the eastern and southern transitways would have to be re-routed to the LRT (or not use it). Most likely that would mean running hundreds of buses a day down the Vanier parkway, which probably wouldn't be too popular with the locals.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The only hope I see is for a semi-segregated streetcar that does not require enormous trains and huge expenditures.

The problem is Montreal Rd. is too narrow to do that effectively so you would end up with something that is no better (and probably worse) than semi-segregated bus lanes.