Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It would have always depended on your destination!

Of course, but I don't think there is any argument that the largest employment node in the city is downtown. LRT is about volume, not special needs. Buses are better for that.

Anyone traveling from Barrhaven to a destination on the NS line (e.g. Confederation Heights or Carleton) would have been better off on the LRT line. Many of the workers at Confederation Heights live in Barrhaven, where they currently clog up Riverside, Hunt Club Bridge and Prince of Wales.

Confederation Heights could easily be served by a direct bus from Barrhaven. If you feel there is demand for this, lobby for such a bus. If it ends up as popular as you say it will be, then it can be an argument for the Trillium line extension to Barrhaven. If it isn't, not much of an investment has been lost.

As for Carleton, admittedly it is awkward to get to from the west, which is the primary reason why the Trillium line was so successful. While not as good, the above bus route could be extended to Carleton or students could transfer to the Trillium line.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

People don't want to read the truth and wish to completely ignore the transportation needs of the south end.

Please try not to take things so personally.

Two completely different routes into the city would make transit more attractive to more people. Isn't this how to achieve higher ridership rates?

Agreed, but the south would be much better served by a direct north/south route than a route that misses the target by heading north-west and thus having to take a sharp turn east. Building a compromise route prevents a good route from ever being built.

For some who could walk onto a train in Barrhaven, they might prefer it over slightly shorter bus ride on the traditional Transitway route (which will soon have a transfer or two).

Sure, but considering Barrhaven is primarily single family homes, how many people will be within walking distance of an LRT station? Do we choose LRT routes based on the benefits of the vast minority?

we are funding rail service all the way to Trim Road (why this is a priority I don't know) and eventually to CTC (probably about the time that CTC moves to Lebreton Flats), long before we correct the mistake of 2006.

I agree. The Trim Rd, Paladium and Bowesville extensions don't make any sense. It is good to have a plan, but we should should see the effect of the initial build before committing to wild extensions.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

While this may not serve you, it will serve the most people in the area the soonest.

While there are many befits to LRT, its success or failure will only be measured by its ridership. Many are touting that the Confederation line will be the "busiest LRT line in North America on its first day of service" (a bit of a dubious claim as it it doesn't fit the mold of a traditional LRT system). If we can achieve that kind of ridership, there will be a strong political will to expand the system, especially if they can achieve the cost savings they are hoping for (the plan appears to use them to pay off the construction costs, which will allow future expansions to occur).

One of the big advantages of the current route as compared to the 2006 route, is from day 1 it will be connected on both ends of downtown, meaning trains in the core will be heavily used in both directions during peak periods. This doubles the usage of the most expensive section of track and stations. Granted contraflow trains will still be largely empty outside of the core, but that is difficult to avoid.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

People don't want to read the truth and wish to completely ignore the transportation needs of the south end. Two completely different routes into the city would make transit more attractive to more people. Isn't this how to achieve higher ridership rates?

There are three transit corridors that lead south (two transitways and one rail) plus another potential through Alta Vista, while there are only one each for the east and west ends where far more people live. Whose transit needs are being ignored exactly? Tally up the money invested so far and, per capita, the inner city and the west end get the short stick

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

There are three transit corridors that lead south (two transitways and one rail) plus another potential through Alta Vista, while there are only one each for the east and west ends where far more people live. Whose transit needs are being ignored exactly? Tally up the money invested so far and, per capita, the inner city and the west end get the short stick

You really think that? Where is most of the investment going right now and for the next generation?

Everything that has been invested in the Trillium Line mostly serves Carleton University students not commuters.

[lrt's friend]

Please try not to take things so personally.

????? How is it personal when I was supporting another posters viewpoint?

Agreed, but the south would be much better served by a direct north/south route than a route that misses the target by heading north-west and thus having to take a sharp turn east. Building a compromise route prevents a good route from ever being built.

I am not sure how you end up building a 'good route' given the layout of the southern half of the city. Isn't Phase 2 of the Trillium Line even a bigger compromise?

One of the big advantages of the current route as compared to the 2006 route, is from day 1 it will be connected on both ends of downtown, meaning trains in the core will be heavily used in both directions during peak periods. This doubles the usage of the most expensive section of track and stations. Granted contraflow trains will still be largely empty outside of the core, but that is difficult to avoid.

I am not sure why we are comparing the 2006 route with the Confederation Line. They serve completely different needs and served completely different parts of the city.

I don't think I have said that we should not be building the Confederation LIne.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

A comprehensive transit system inside the Greenbelt would serve the most people, and would have the biggest impact on curbing sprawl. A commuter rail system simply enables it.

I agree 100%. The Trim Rd extension will encourage development east of Trim Rd.

I have said all along that I don't believe the LRT should be extended beyond the Greenbelt. One of the other problems with extending beyond the Greenbelt is the further you get from the core, the more branches you need to make the stations reasonably close to people. As a result, most people will have to bus to the LRT anyway, so why not have those buses take a more direct route to a more central station.

A perfect example of this is the community of Bridalwood in Kanata. For most the best route is via Old Richmond Rd. (like route 256), but if the LRT is extended to Kanata, OC Transpo would likely instead want to re-route them to Eagleson to shorten the bus route and maximize the use of the Kanata LRT extension, even though it is a longer route overall for most riders.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Everyone thinks their particular neighbourhood or section of the city is deserving of a 9 or 10 digit transit investment and everyone else can take a hike.

Full disclosure, I live in Stittsville but have always worked in Kanata(ish) so I don't expect LRT will directly help my daily commute. Admittedly a Kanata extension could indirectly help because the current ExpressConnexion routes from Stittsville don't stop in Kanata, so they are useless to me. A Kanata LRT extension would solve this, but its not a good reason for LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree 100%. The Trim Rd extension will encourage development east of Trim Rd.

I have said all along that I don't believe the LRT should be extended beyond the Greenbelt. One of the other problems with extending beyond the Greenbelt is the further you get from the core, the more branches you need to make the stations reasonably close to people. As a result, most people will have to bus to the LRT anyway, so why not have those buses take a more direct route to a more central station.

A perfect example of this is the community of Bridalwood in Kanata. For most the best route is via Old Richmond Rd. (like route 256), but if the LRT is extended to Kanata, OC Transpo would likely instead want to re-route them to Eagleson to shorten the bus route and maximize the use of the Kanata LRT extension, even though it is a longer route overall for most riders.



Full disclosure, I live in Stittsville but have always worked in Kanata(ish) so I don't expect LRT will directly help my daily commute. Admittedly a Kanata extension could indirectly help because the current ExpressConnexion routes from Stittsville don't stop in Kanata, so they are useless to me. A Kanata LRT extension would solve this, but its not a good reason for LRT.

I am not sure what the alternative is to LRT going beyond the Greenbelt.

In most cities, the alternative is to build commuter rail but we have long ripped up most of the rail lines and none go to the city centre anymore.

Because of this, we have a dilemma.

Going beyond this, we could build Transitways to the suburbs but this is not the ideal solution either because operating costs will continue to escalate. That is the argument for building LRT in the first place.

We could also just throw in the sponge and let everybody from outside the Greenbelt commute by car but that means building new highways that will also destroy the city centre and everywhere between the suburbs and downtown.

The reality is that we only have a certain degree of control over sprawl. If we don't address transportation, we will make Ottawa a living hell where it becomes very difficult to move around. I don't think we should want that either.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

????? How is it personal when I was supporting another posters viewpoint?

Your original quote was:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

People don't want to read the truth and wish to completely ignore the transportation needs of the south end.

To me this didn't come across as simply supporting another poster's viewpoint but instead were taking the decisions as something more sinister. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not sure how you end up building a 'good route' given the layout of the southern half of the city. Isn't Phase 2 of the Trillium Line even a bigger compromise?

Without a doubt, but without a direct link downtown (or double tracking for that mater) none of the work will be a disincentive to constructing a direct N-S route in the future. Regardless they are spinning their wheels on this one.

I am not sure why we are comparing the 2006 route with the Confederation Line. They serve completely different needs and served completely different parts of the city.

I don't think I have said that we should not be building the Confederation LIne.

True, but I don't think we could have had both within a timely manner. It is true Montreal opened 2 lines at once (and the third a year later) but Montreal was the largest city in Canada at the time and was (and is) significantly larger than Ottawa (or even the NCR) is today.

[Mikeed]

Not the best thread to throw this down in, but I think the lessons of the otrain pilot project should be learned and acted on.

I think the crosstown otrain line as seen in I think the 2003 TMP should arguably be close to the top of the list of projects post phase 2 of the Confederation Line.

The "phase 3" should be a collection of smaller plans and optimisations:
Crosstown otrain, Carling LRT, and optimisations to Trillium Line and BRT connections to Barrhaven.

We have an opportunity to build the equivalent of a ring road in the form of the Otrain pilot project. Building out park and rides and possibly a larger regional rail project.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think my position is that there should be a degree of equitable investment, which is typical in most cities. And, we should not be investing in plans that are poorly thought out and poorly executed.

There is no question that east-west will achieve the highest ridership, but we are living in a fool's paradise if we think it is a good idea to invest almost all our money on one line.

A large portion of the city's population lives south of the Queensway and east of Woodroffe and west of St. Laurent, which will not be particularly well served by the Confederation Line.

As a person who lives in said zone, I'm not in agreement that things are as bleak as you say. I frequently take the Trillium line over the transitway, right now, because I find the scenic tour that buses take around Hurdman and the central post office longer then taking the train and transferring at Bayview, I also work in the western end of downtown so it's a shorter trip for me. While we don't get a single seat ride into downtown in this world, I'm not bothered by as long as the transfer is easy. Lot's of cities require transfers, Montreal has Berri-UQAM, Vancouver has Commercial Broadway, and Toronto has Bloor-Yonge, it's not the end of the world. Yes, a double track Trillium line that went downtown would be better, but that ship has sailed and things's are not so bad in my opinion. We retain both LRT and BRT in the southend despite a transfer, while people like Uhuniau get neither.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

As a person who lives in said zone, I'm not in agreement that things are as bleak as you say. I frequently take the Trillium line over the transitway, right now, because I find the scenic tour that buses take around Hurdman and the central post office longer then taking the train and transferring at Bayview, I also work in the western end of downtown so it's a shorter trip for me. While we don't get a single seat ride into downtown in this world, I'm not bothered by as long as the transfer is easy. Lot's of cities require transfers, Montreal has Berri-UQAM, Vancouver has Commercial Broadway, and Toronto has Bloor-Yonge, it's not the end of the world. Yes, a double track Trillium line that went downtown would be better, but that ship has sailed and things's are not so bad in my opinion. We retain both LRT and BRT in the southend despite a transfer, while people like Uhuniau get neither.

The challenge is when you have to transfer again at Greenboro especially during off-peak hours. At least Uhuniau has direct buses into downtown realizing his other complaints.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not sure what the alternative is to LRT going beyond the Greenbelt.

In most cities, the alternative is to build commuter rail but we have long ripped up most of the rail lines and none go to the city centre anymore.

Even then, Ottawa is too small for commuter rail. The major suburbs are too close to be the outer terminus (you would end up with a train with only 2 or 3 stations) and the towns outside beyond them are too small to support commuter rail.

Because of this, we have a dilemma.

Agreed

Going beyond this, we could build Transitways to the suburbs but this is not the ideal solution either because operating costs will continue to escalate. That is the argument for building LRT in the first place.

It wouldn't be a 1 size fits all solution. Kanata and Orleans already have bus lanes on the 417/174 and I don't think they are anywhere near capacity. Barrhaven has the south-western transitway (with a bit of a kludge around Hunt Club) which other than the rail crossings, also work well. Ottawa South has the southern transitway which could be extended south of the Airport quite easily.

As for escalating costs, the confederation line will help a lot (immediately in the east and after stage 2 in the west) as the travel time to the LRT will be quite short allowing more time for multiple runs during peak periods (many routes are currently a 1 and done type scenario, which is very expensive). Extending the LRT beyond the Greenbelt will follow the law of diminishing returns on this though.

The reality is that we only have a certain degree of control over sprawl. If we don't address transportation, we will make Ottawa a living hell where it becomes very difficult to move around. I don't think we should want that either.

I agree, we can't control it, but we can choose to make decisions that either encourage or discourage it.

The two places I could see extending the LRT to are Bells Corners and Blackburn Hamlet. Both are islands within the Greenbelt, so sprawl is controlled and transit options are currently poor but if enhanced, they could become excellent TOD nodes. Not sure about Blackburn Hamlet, but for Bells Corners there is a largely forgotten ex CP ROW from Bayshore to Moodie near Timm Dr (you can see it as a line of trees that lines up with the Trans Canada Trail from Satellite view). Crossing the Queensway would be expensive, but the rest would be cheap.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The challenge is when you have to transfer again at Greenboro especially during off-peak hours. At least Uhuniau has direct buses into downtown realizing his other complaints.

I'm not saying a double transfer is ideal, I'm just saying a double or triple transfer is the reality for lots of cities around the world, including Canada's 3 largest cities. Since we'll be in that boat now, what OCTranspo needs to ensure is transferring is as painless as possible, since we're used to the one seat ride the transitway provided.

[1overcosc]

From the East end open house a few weeks back - frequencies of the new routes in the east end. And: the most up to date frequency of the Confederation Line.. very similar to what has been shown before--5 minute frequency in the midday and weekday daytime; 8 minutes in evenings.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The challenge is when you have to transfer again at Greenboro especially during off-peak hours. At least Uhuniau has direct buses into downtown realizing his other complaints.

So for you, the better option is transferring to the Confederation line at Hurdman (from what I gather, the Connexion buses will continue to it, and off peak the rapid buses should be more frequent than the Trillium line). This isn't that much different from those in Kanata or Orleans (with a double transfer off peak). Agreed it would be nice if everyone was within walking distance of a station, but few cities have that luxury so bus/train transfers are usually necessary. Direct buses to downtown for almost everyone was one of the perks of the Transitway, but we outgrew that system. Even London, which has one of the world's best underground networks, has an extensive network of bus routes and it is often faster to take a bus than it is to take the tube, despite the traffic.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I'm not saying a double transfer is ideal, I'm just saying a double or triple transfer is the reality for lots of cities around the world, including Canada's 3 largest cities. Since we'll be in that boat now, what OCTranspo needs to ensure is transferring is as painless as possible, since we're used to the one seat ride the transitway provided.

I am not asking for a single seat ride to downtown. However, the industry knows that once you get to the second transfer, ridership falls off very quickly. Even the TTC knows this. The Bloor-Yonge and Millenium-Expo transfers should not be presented as poster children as they are a source of frustration in both cities. Even then and particularly in Toronto, bus routes often have very frequent service. That is not the case in Ottawa.

If you look at European transit service, you will see a lot of interlining in order to get you to your destination with a minimum of transfers.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So for you, the better option is transferring to the Confederation line at Hurdman (from what I gather, the Connexion buses will continue to it, and off peak the rapid buses should be more frequent than the Trillium line). This isn't that much different from those in Kanata or Orleans (with a double transfer off peak). Agreed it would be nice if everyone was within walking distance of a station, but few cities have that luxury so bus/train transfers are usually necessary. Direct buses to downtown for almost everyone was one of the perks of the Transitway, but we outgrew that system. Even London, which has one of the world's best underground networks, has an extensive network of bus routes and it is often faster to take a bus than it is to take the tube, despite the traffic.

I know that the express bus network has got to come to an end. The city has outgrown it. But, our goal should be to get everybody downtown with no more than one transfer. I realize that this is not possible in some cases until Phase 2 is completed. My objection is when our long-term planning calls for two transfers to get downtown even during peak periods. We are not going to get people wanting to come downtown under those circumstances.

Our goal should be to get people wanting to come back downtown for shopping, entertainment and other events but without an easy way to get there, even from the suburbs, we will continue to have downtown bleed to the suburbs. European city downtowns are bustling largely because buses, trams and trains all get you there easily.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

From the East end open house a few weeks back - frequencies of the new routes in the east end. And: the most up to date frequency of the Confederation Line.. very similar to what has been shown before--5 minute frequency in the midday and weekday daytime; 8 minutes in evenings.

Seems that peak period frequency once quoted 3 minutes and 15 seconds has now been reduced to 5 minutes. True?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It seems that the majority on here seem to think this all makes perfect sense. Then the 'experts' count us as being amongst the 70% living within 5 km of LRT even though it is next to useless to us.

Not only that, the "70% living within 5 km of LRT" is barely useful as a political point, and utterly useless as an analysis of transit service.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree 100%. The Trim Rd extension will encourage development east of Trim Rd.

It will also inhibit it in the "inner east": if the transit spine bypasses inner neighbourhoods, so will economic development and other public-sector spending.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The reality is that we only have a certain degree of control over sprawl. If we don't address transportation, we will make Ottawa a living hell where it becomes very difficult to move around. I don't think we should want that either.

Another reality is that the City of Ottawa consistently fails to apply even what little control it has over sprawl.