Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Probably on the margins (people between Beachwood and Montreal would have a strong incentive to choose Montreal over Beachwood) but walking 15 minutes to get to Montreal when the bus on Beachwood takes less than 15 minutes to get to the Rideau Centre might not be a big draw.

15 minutes *under ideal conditions*.

Real world? Pffft.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Try selling that to the public "sorry, this LRT system we just built is a total gong show and we need to spend a billion dollars to replace it with something else"

Same public that - eventually - accepted, "sorry, this BRT system we just spent three decades building, and way more money than was originally budgetted, justifying the choice of BRT over LRT in the first place, is a total gong show and we need to spend two billion dollars to replace it with something else"?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Let's pretend the old plan had gone ahead and opened in 2009. The city would have muddled along for at least 5 years (2014) before taking on any major transit projects. I doubt someone like Jim Watson would have the vision to come up with anything remotely close to the Confederation Line, especially since he was ambivalent about the project when he was elected.

Ambivalent? There were times the weasel was openly hostile, when he though that's what his suburban voters wanted to hear.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Complete revisionist fantasy. The original funding was leveraged to ask for more money for a bigger project. The tunnel could not have been justified and built without E-W Transitway conversion. It was a lot of discussion and work just to get the city and its citizens to just to shift its thinking and get to what we are building now. Anyone who doesn't remember that has short term memory.

The city isn't pouring money into the Trillium line because as-is it isn't even at capacity. You can spend a billion upgrading it but it won't surpass a sixth of the Confederation line's volume.

It is only revisionist to the extent that it didn't happen. We don't know what could have been possible because we did not try this approach. Frankly, this would have been more sane than cancelling a signed contract with all the losses this entailed.

On the matter of the Trillium Line, we are not even trying to make it a success. We have an unreliable service that shuts down regularly that does not offer sufficiently frequent service to act as a trunk line. I live near it but don't use it because it does not go where I want to go.

Even if it only delivered one sixth of the ridership (remember you are forcing everybody from the south end to use the Confederation Line so we get tallied in its total to travel a couple of stops) and if the cost is 1 billion to upgrade, is that not comparable to the cost of extending the Confederation Line to the ends of the earth in the east and west ends? We have spent $2.1B+ for Phase 1, $3B for Phase 2. How much Phase 3 and 4? Boy, those costs are piling up.

Regarding capacity of the Trillium Line, they had to combine Route 3 and 111 and re-route it to Carleton in order to keep the Trillium Line from exceeding its current capacity. In the long-run, they have to route all bus service from the southeast neighbourhoods to Hurdman to make sure that the Trillium Line does not exceed current or future capacity. Yes, the Trillium Line does not exceed as-is capacity because of all these workarounds that we have implemented and because of the unreliable service that is delivered.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Same public that - eventually - accepted, "sorry, this BRT system we just spent three decades building, and way more money than was originally budgetted, justifying the choice of BRT over LRT in the first place, is a total gong show and we need to spend two billion dollars to replace it with something else"?

"Sorry, we made a stupid decision 40 years ago and all of the people involved are either dead or cranky old windbags"

is somewhat easier than

"sorry, we made a stupid decision 5 years ago, and most of the same people are still around, but trust us this time"

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

"Sorry, we made a stupid decision 40 years ago and all of the people involved are either dead or cranky old windbags"

is somewhat easier than

"sorry, we made a stupid decision 5 years ago, and most of the same people are still around, but trust us this time"

True. I agree that it was a mistake to build the BRT, but attitudes have changed a lot in the past 40 years. Trains were considered passé and buses were all the rage. Now buses are considered smelly and noisy and trains are clean and quiet. I am sure it didn't help that 40 years ago, the ripping up of all the streetcar lines 20 years prior was still fresh in peoples memories.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True. I agree that it was a mistake to build the BRT, but attitudes have changed a lot in the past 40 years. Trains were considered passé and buses were all the rage. Now buses are considered smelly and noisy and trains are clean and quiet. I am sure it didn't help that 40 years ago, the ripping up of all the streetcar lines 20 years prior was still fresh in peoples memories.

I don't know. At the time Ottawa was getting into busways in the 70s and 80s, cities like Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver (and American cities such as Pittsburgh, Portland and Sacramento) were building rail-based transportation systems.

Ottawa was really alone in North America for its full embrace of BRT (although there were several South American cities that really got into it). BRT systems built since have been much more limited in scope than Ottawa.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know. At the time Ottawa was getting into busways in the 70s and 80s, cities like Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver (and American cities such as Pittsburgh, Portland and Sacramento) were building rail-based transportation systems.

Ottawa was really alone in North America for its full embrace of BRT (although there were several South American cities that really got into it). BRT systems built since have been much more limited in scope than Ottawa.

At the time when decisions were being made about BRT versus LRT, concersn about the 1950s streetcar removal wasn't really an issue as far as I remember. In fact, Ottawa's streetcars were always romanticized. There were talk shows remembering the streetcars and comments were overwhelmingly positive.

The main issue was that the capital cost of rail was going to be significantly higher.

At the time, LRT was in its infancy in North America. Edmonton was first then Calgary and both were funded with oil royalties that Ottawa and Ontario did not have. This was a major factor on why we went the other way. There was also the belief that Ottawa did not have the population to support LRT at the time. That was why they presented the concept that BRT would be converted to LRT later when population could support it.

The United States did not provide any good examples. Both the systems in Sacramento and Portland opened after our Phase 1 Transitway opened and Pittsburgh were running legacy streetcars on old streetcar routes, much like Toronto. It was all 40 or 50 year old PCC streetcars at the time.

There was really only Edmonton that opened in 1978 as an example when our key decisions were being made and Edmonton's system was not an overwhelming success. It was designed to service the Commonwealth Games that year instead of the city's population, so it was not particularly popular. Calgary did not open until 1981.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At the time when decisions were being made about BRT versus LRT, concersn about the 1950s streetcar removal wasn't really an issue as far as I remember. In fact, Ottawa's streetcars were always romanticized. There were talk shows remembering the streetcars and comments were overwhelmingly positive.

The main issue was that the capital cost of rail was going to be significantly higher.

At the time, LRT was in its infancy in North America. Edmonton was first then Calgary and both were funded with oil royalties that Ottawa and Ontario did not have. This was a major factor on why we went the other way. There was also the belief that Ottawa did not have the population to support LRT at the time. That was why they presented the concept that BRT would be converted to LRT later when population could support it.

The United States did not provide any good examples. Both the systems in Sacramento and Portland opened after our Phase 1 Transitway opened and Pittsburgh were running legacy streetcars on old streetcar routes, much like Toronto. It was all 40 or 50 year old PCC streetcars at the time.

There was really only Edmonton that opened in 1978 as an example when our key decisions were being made and Edmonton's system was not an overwhelming success. It was designed to service the Commonwealth Games that year instead of the city's population, so it was not particularly popular. Calgary did not open until 1981.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but by the time the O-train was approved in 1978 the Edmonton Light Rail was already under construction, the C-Train was in planning (having been approved in 1977), the Ontario Government had created the Urban Transportation Development Corporation to develop new light rail technologies and Ontario was eager for demonstration projects. At the time the province paid 75% of transit capital costs.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but by the time the O-train was approved in 1978 the Edmonton Light Rail was already under construction, the C-Train was in planning (having been approved in 1977), the Ontario Government had created the Urban Transportation Development Corporation to develop new light rail technologies and Ontario was eager for demonstration projects. At the time the province paid 75% of transit capital costs.

Yes, and as I mentioned, the two Alberta projects were funded by the Alberta Heritage Fund from oil royalties. Also, in 1981, there was the first major oil crash that stopped further development for a few years in Calgary. The mediocre results in Edmonton stopped progress for a generation.

You are correct that Ontario was also developing its own Rapid Transit rail technology, but again that came slightly later. The demonstration Scarborough RT opened in 1985, two years after Phase 1 of Ottawa's Transitways. Ontario's technology was the precursor of Vancouver's skytrain, which opened in 1986.

Regardless, the main consideration was capital affordability at the time.

There has been comments about whether the Transitways were a success or not. The times of the 1980s and 1990s (which included a significant economic slump) and continued suburbanization of our cities was leading to lower transit ridership. Also, the election of Mike Harris in 1990s produced a government that was decidedly anti-transit and anti-city. The provincial transit contribution of 75% ended with Mike Harris. Given the times, Ottawa did surprisingly well. The fact that the Transitway has reached capacity downtown supports that.

Any comparisons with Calgary are not entirely fair. When the C-Train began, Calgary Transit was substantially behind OC Transpo in modal share. There was considerable pick up especially after 2000 in Calgary but this was not only because of the C-Train but also based on job placement in downtown Calgary, which was being encouraged by city planners. Despite all of that, Ottawa's transit modal share is still higher (as far as I know) than Calgary. Calgary's C-Train provides generally very good service but it is also reaching capacity downtown. On the other hand, Calgary bus service and local connections are considered substandard.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Regardless, the main consideration was capital affordability at the time.

There has been comments about whether the Transitways were a success or not. The times of the 1980s and 1990s (which included a significant economic slump) and continued suburbanization of our cities was leading to lower transit ridership. Also, the election of Mike Harris in 1990s produced a government was that decidedly anti-transit and anti-city. The provincial transit contribution of 75% ended with Mike Harris. Given the times, Ottawa did surprisingly well. The fact that the Transitway has reached capacity downtown supports that.

The Transitway was the right solution at the time. It did a lot for obtaining the right of ways without the huge capital costs of a light-rail system. Had the LRT been launched in 1983, it would have been derided as a costly failure that would have hurt the mindset for transit.

The trick with transit is to be slightly ahead of the curve, so that when the city needs it, it is reasonably cost-effective to implement, but not so far ahead that critics can rip it apart as a boondoggle and taxpayers are stuck with shouldering a massive pile of debt (interest rates were murderous in the early 1980s) that has a very poor user-cost recovery ratio.

For context, in 1983, the Ottawa area had about ~550,000 people. It's close to double that now. I don't see growth abating any time soon and I imagine that the density of the Ottawa area will increase too.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is only revisionist to the extent that it didn't happen. We don't know what could have been possible because we did not try this approach. Frankly, this would have been more sane than cancelling a signed contract with all the losses this entailed.

It's revisionist because you seem to think the two projects could have happened in tandem. NSLRT had to die in order for Confederation Line to be born. Prior to the 2006 election nobody was talking about an East-West line. Of the three front runners in the mayoral race O'Brien was the only one pushing for a reset and rethink which resulted in more than a year or two of hashing out a new Transit Master Plan. I was no huge fan of Larry's governing style, but I have to give him credit for trying to shake up City Hall from the lethargic mediocrity carried over from the RMOC era by Chiarelli. In many ways, Watson is still just reaping the seeds O'Brien sowed, from Lansdowne to the Confederation Line

[J.OT13]

Is this supposed to be the Rideau Station Concourse?



http://www.ahr-global.com/Ottawa-Light-Rail-Transit-Project

Caption is wrong, stating that the line is 40 kilometers.

Reminds of one of the concepts for Rideau from around 2011-2012 showing a centre platform with a black and red colour scheme throughout the station. Can't find that version anywhere through.

[J.OT13]

Rideau Station through the years.

2009



2011



-----

2012 missing link

-----

2013



2017

[J.OT13]

Interesting station concepts. Might have been from one of the losing consortium.

Here's campus;



Lees;



Blair;




Lots more can be found here;

http://www.dhrendering.com/lowrise.asp

[Dado]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Who would have taken the surface line? Trillium Line users would have demanded their LRT be connected to the tunnel.

In this alt-history world of an NS LRT and a subsequent tunnel, it's just possible that the surface could continue to be used by the Trillium Line and trains from Gatineau. A surface line would definitely be more useful for intra-downtown trips, something that our two or three station tunnel most definitely won't be useful for.

Mind you, in this alt-history world of the NS LRT being built and then foundering in a bus queue, there was always the danger that the BRT consultants who ran the City's transportation planning at the time would use the downtown failure as grounds never to build another LRT project again. They may have made a play for a bus tunnel instead. Indeed, as late as the 2008 TMP update, we still had professional engineers putting their signature on a report upholding the supposed viability of a bus tunnel as a solution to Ottawa's downtown transit problem.

Originally Posted by wave46

The Transitway was the right solution at the time. It did a lot for obtaining the right of ways without the huge capital costs of a light-rail system. Had the LRT been launched in 1983, it would have been derided as a costly failure that would have hurt the mindset for transit.

We'll never know, but at the time we had both a larger population and higher transit ridership than either Calgary or Edmonton. The Transitway did nothing to increase ridership; ridership declined for the entire Transitway build-out period, finally bottoming out with the 1996 OC Transpo strike. Moreover, ridership became increasingly commuter-based (it is just possible that commuter ridership stood still or even grew slightly, but was swamped by offpeak ridership losses as offpeak ridership most definitely did suffer). It wasn't until 2004 that ridership finally climbed back to where it had been in 1983. On the usual grounds of ridership impact, it would be difficult to call the Transitway anything but a costly failure.

It's also not a foregone conclusion that LRT would have been more expensive: light rail would not have needed the Scott Street trench; it could have run right on the surface like the CPR still did east of Holland Ave. In general terms, it's easier to convert a railway RoW with tracks still in place into a light railway than it is to convert it into a busway.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At the time, LRT was in its infancy in North America. Edmonton was first then Calgary and both were funded with oil royalties that Ottawa and Ontario did not have. This was a major factor on why we went the other way. There was also the belief that Ottawa did not have the population to support LRT at the time. That was why they presented the concept that BRT would be converted to LRT later when population could support it.

The population argument has never made sense: Ottawa-proper was Canada's 4th city at the time. Its workforce, being civil service, was overwhelmingly concentrated in a few districts. Ottawa was practically tailor-made for light rail.

As for the oil royalties, there's a profound irony in the two oilpatch cities opting to choose electric light rail over diesel buses, thus insulating themselves from future fuel price increases, while the capital, with ample hydroelectric resources nearby and with the OPEC crisis a recent memory, chooses diesel buses and locking itself into escalating operating costs. Perhaps Ottawa figured that the NEP would fund its transit system.

[lrt's friend]

The population argument has never made sense: Ottawa-proper was Canada's 4th city at the time. Its workforce, being civil service, was overwhelmingly concentrated in a few districts. Ottawa was practically tailor-made for light rail.

As for the oil royalties, there's a profound irony in the two oilpatch cities opting to choose electric light rail over diesel buses, thus insulating themselves from future fuel price increases, while the capital, with ample hydroelectric resources nearby and with the OPEC crisis a recent memory, chooses diesel buses and locking itself into escalating operating costs. Perhaps Ottawa figured that the NEP would fund its transit system.

I was just reporting on my memories of what happened.

I was keen supporter of public transit even in those days but I was resigned that Ottawa could not pull off a rail project just as I was resigned at the same time that Ottawa would never get an NHL franchise. I was quite surprised when the tide turned on both matters. Something fundamentally changed from the late 70s to the early 90s and what seemed impossible in the former suddenly became possible in the latter. I suppose a change of generations of our local leaders was a factor.

I was generally pleased that at least some sort of transit modernization was taking place and I was not fully informed of the pros and cons of the two possible choices. I have learned a lot since then.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's revisionist because you seem to the two projects could have happened in tandem. NSLRT had to die in order for Confederation Line to be born. Prior to the 2006 election nobody was talking about an East-West line. Of the three front runners in the mayoral race O'Brien was the only one pushing for a reset and rethink which resulted in more than a year or two of hashing out a new Transit Master Plan. I was no huge fan of Larry's governing style, but I have to give him credit for trying to shake up City Hall from the lethargic mediocrity carried over from the RMOC era by Chiarelli. In many ways, Watson is still just reaping the seeds O'Brien sowed, from Lansdowne to the Confederation Line

I will concede that there is considerable truth in what you are saying. However, the N-S plan was not to be built in isolation. There was a bigger plan in development. We can argue endlessly about the pros and cons of the pre and post 2006 TMP. We will only start finding out the merits of the post 2006 TMP after Phase 1 of the Confederation Line opens. We will see.

But, I will continue to be critical of what has happened to the Trillium Line. What started out with such promise after it first opened has been a planning mess that has not met the expectations of residents who live in neighbourhoods surrounding it and Phase 2 just seems to be more of the same failed approach. You seem to deny the failings of the Trillium Line that has not progressed beyond being mostly a student train.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by wave46

For context, in 1983, the Ottawa area had about ~550,000 people. It's close to double that now. I don't see growth abating any time soon and I imagine that the density of the Ottawa area will increase too.

Some areas are getting denser, others are actually getting less so... including areas that we are extending LRT to in Phase II.

There is a huge economic imperative to densification, both for the purpose of mitigating the costs of maintaining and lifecycle-replacing existing infrastructure, and of mitigating the future growth of those costs. Sadly, the city and the development industry can't see past a very short-term horizon, and keep proposing and authorizing the same kind of mindless post-war sprawl that is going to start getting very expensive to repair, very soon.

Even sadder, that economic imperative also runs up against a rampant culture of conservatism as well, both in the economic ("robble robble taxes robble robble robble") and change-averse ("won't someone think of the character of the neighbourhood!") senses. And, of course, those mindsets are also closely allied with the auto-entitlement philosophy that demands lots of public spending on roads, while simultaneously decrying transit investment as "waste".

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Interesting station concepts. Might have been from one of the losing consortium.

Here's campus;

Love how they have obliterated almost every building west of the canal and south of Parliament Hill. Kinda like the ultimate NCC-Greenspace-Metcalfe Boulevard fantasy. Look how vibrant it is! such space many green amaze!