Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I remember all those times the ottbike people said that transit space wasn't being sacrificed to make room for bikes.

I still do not see what the imperative is to remove buses from Wellington.

Wellington is prone to closure for protests, visiting dignitaries and ceremonies. I'm sure the Feds would prefer less essential traffic on it for security reasons. Of course there's the touristic value of the space — buses make the place incredibly noisy, and to briefly suspend service daily in the summer just for the Changing the Guard is ridiculous. Even during Remembrance Day's moment of silence, it's very distracting to hear the roar of buses on Slater/Albert.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Wellington is prone to closure for protests, visiting dignitaries and ceremonies. I'm sure the Feds would prefer less essential traffic on it for security reasons. Of course there's the touristic value of the space — buses make the place incredibly noisy, and to briefly suspend service daily in the summer just for the Changing the Guard is ridiculous.

There is also the issue of wanting the STO buses to connect to the LRT. Yes that could be done at Rideau, but for those travelling west, it makes sense to have them stop at the station closest to the bridge.

The frequent closures makes me think even more that a contraflow bus lane should be installed on Elgin east of the War Memorial for buses travelling south/west.

Regarding "the touristic value of the space," it would be nice if they could greatly reduce the number of motor vehicles that use Wellington. It would be nice if they could re-route traffic from the SJAMP and the Portage bridge directly to either Albert/Slater (or Queen for buses)

Even during Remembrance Day's moment of silence, it's very distracting to hear the roar of buses on Slater/Albert.

Not sure how re-routing buses from Wellington to Albert/Slater will help with this. LRT will result in a huge reduction of buses though.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm happy the city is getting called out over their poor public engagement and lack of transparency with their plans, but I'm finding it hard to get too riled up about what is actually being built. The addition of a southbound bike lane to Bay St sounds like a good plan to me.

I have to disagree on a the Bay St. bit. At best, a lane on Bay would go southbound to Laurier, then cyclists would need to jog west and make a left hand turn at an unsignalized intersection at Percy to continue south. Not ideal. It also puts them a long way west of most destinations. That leaves no southbound cycling route between O'Connor and Percy.

The other problem is getting to Bay. Coming from the central part of downtown north of Albert, there is no proper route to get there, unless you ride on Sparks.

We are encouraging people to bike to work, but this plan dumps people 4 or 5 blocks short of their destinations, after which they need to bike on decidedly unfriendly streets. Not a good way to get the casual cyclist riding to work.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Wellington is prone to closure for protests,

Pro protest tip: so is every other street, as the Tamil protestors used the other year, blocking the Transitway downtown and the Gardiner in Toronto.

visiting dignitaries and ceremonies.

Those things disrupt other downtown streets, too.

I'm sure the Feds would prefer less essential traffic on it for security reasons.

Good for them, but that's a BS reason. There's no reason Wellington should be off-limits to bus traffic because of that.

Of course there's the touristic value of the space

Which will now be reserved for private vehicles, not public ones.

— buses make the place incredibly noisy

And?

, and to briefly suspend service daily in the summer just for the Changing the Guard is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about it?

Even during Remembrance Day's moment of silence, it's very distracting to hear the roar of buses on Slater/Albert.

You mean, during the moment of silence when those buses pull over to, um, observe that same moment of silence?

None of these things make buses-off-Wellington *imperative*. This is all being done in the name of NCC pretty-fetishism, and will remove the public from a public space. Great going.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

http://catherinemckenney.ca/en/category/updates-en/

I think Catherine McKenney's update is worth reading. Since not everyone follows links, here is the full contents of the update (Emphasis as found in original link. I didn't include the map as zzptichka already shared it):

Lyon Street Redesign
November 15, 2017

With the O-Train going online in 2018 and the subsequent reduction in bus operations in the core, we have the opportunity to re-imagine mobility in the core. A key part of this process has been a consideration of Lyon Street at Queen Street, originally designed with cars as the dominant user.

Over the past couple of days many residents, in particular pedestrians, seniors, transit users and cyclists have noticed that the reconstruction of Lyon Street at Queen Street is proceeding under plans that differ from those that were presented in 2016. Specifically, the bike lane presented in an earlier version of the plan for Lyon Street is no longer a part of this street’s reconstruction.

What happened?

The plans were revised following the agreement between the City and la Ville de Gatineau on how bus services in downtown Ottawa would connect with the O-Train Confederation Line. In coordination with the key stakeholders, Lyon Station was chosen to be the primary connection point between STO services and the O-Train. This would remove buses from Wellington, making way for future cycling infrastructure on Wellington, Slater and Albert Streets. The plan that is currently being implemented reflects this decision. There was also a public information session held on July 12, 2017, at City Hall, although I acknowledge that I could have done more to ensure awareness of that. While nearby residences were flyered, it is now my understanding that the information was not put out on social media.Lyon and Queen Drawing

Let me be clear: improving mobility in the core has been a main focus of my work as City Councillor for Somerset Ward. The agreement to make Lyon Station the primary connection point between STO services and the O-Train, I believe, will significantly reduce bus operation in downtown Ottawa and in turn, create a much more welcoming environment for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the core.

I am pleased that as part of the reconstruction of Lyon at Queen, and to minimize the interaction between cyclists and traffic, the City is proceeding with the implementation in 2018 of a southbound cycling facility on Bay Street in order to maintain a north-south connection between Wellington and Laurier. The City will also be installing road markings on Lyon to guide cyclists and motorists for the interim period before the O-Train and Bay Street facility open in 2018.

I would also like to address the issue of the turn lane for buses from Queen to northbound on Lyon. Without the pedestrian island, the radius required for a bus to turn at his location would have made been very wide, creating a significant crossing for pedestrians. The lane will include a stop sign and raised area to ensure that pedestrians are provided a safe and comfortable crossing.

I would be happy to discuss this redesign with anyone who would like to call me at 613-580-2484.

Overall, it is my belief that the current Lyon Street design at Queen Street is a necessary step to ensure that all alternative transportation modes are prioritized in the core. In the grand scheme of things, this design will concentrate busses on one street segment in order to liberate the rest of the core from busses while ensuring the flow of pedestrian and cycling traffic throughout downtown Ottawa.

[Kitchissippi]

I was wondering about what happens at the termini. At Blair, since it is a centre platform, will the arriving trains stay in place and the departure platforms just alternate? At Tunney's I imagine the trains will have to back out and then into the opposite track, which makes me wonder why they didn't include an extra bit of track at the end where they could do this manoeuvre instead of up front where it can potentially affect headways at peak hours. They could store a couple of extra trains back there, too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I was wondering about what happens at the termini. At Blair, since it is a centre platform, will the arriving trains stay in place and the departure platforms just alternate? At Tunney's I imagine the trains will have to back out and then into the opposite track, which makes me wonder why they didn't include an extra bit of track at the end where they could do this manoeuvre instead of up front where it can potentially affect headways at peak hours. They could store a couple of extra trains back there, too.

Downsview and Finch are both centre platforms. Trains pull in on either side. A sign directs passengers to the next train.

[acottawa]

I think the big problem with Wellington is it is at the edge of downtown. It's convenient for staffers but inconvenient for everyone else. A more central location makes sense to me.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I remember all those times the ottbike people said that transit space wasn't being sacrificed to make room for bikes.

I still do not see what the imperative is to remove buses from Wellington.

Counter argument, what's the imperative of running buses on Wellington, other than your preference for straight lines or faster travel times if you're merely traversing downtown. Wellington has virtually no shops, businesses, or destinations of use for most transit riders (parliamentarians aren't really transit riders), whereas the new routing actually takes the buses closer to where people are going.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I was wondering about what happens at the termini. At Blair, since it is a centre platform, will the arriving trains stay in place and the departure platforms just alternate? At Tunney's I imagine the trains will have to back out and then into the opposite track, which makes me wonder why they didn't include an extra bit of track at the end where they could do this manoeuvre instead of up front where it can potentially affect headways at peak hours. They could store a couple of extra trains back there, too.

No, they will arrive at either track at Tunney's, and then electronic signs in the station mezzanine will direct you to the right platform. Outside of peak times, I would see them only bothering with one platform. It's going to be awkward, but it is only a temporary terminus.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the big problem with Wellington is it is at the edge of downtown. It's convenient for staffers but inconvenient for everyone else. A more central location makes sense to me.

Yes, but at the cost of adding more turns to local bus routes in the core (or, as OCTranspo seems to prefer, just chopping the local routes into uselessly short lengths and forcing you to transfer), and at the cost of removing an aspect of the public sphere (transit) from the ceremonial main street of the country, and letting the private (cars) floodfill the newly-vacated space.

You can bus right past Big Ben in London, right past the National Assembly in Paris, right past the Reichstag in Berlin, right past the Capitol in Washington, but the Parliament of Canada, a national parliament and a set of Parliamentary buildings that is one of the finest in the world, nope - buses have to be prettyized out of the picture in the name of some ungodly anti-transit aesthetic and BS fears about security.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Counter argument, what's the imperative of running buses on Wellington, other than your preference for straight lines or faster travel times if you're merely traversing downtown. Wellington has virtually no shops, businesses, or destinations of use for most transit riders (parliamentarians aren't really transit riders), whereas the new routing actually takes the buses closer to where people are going.

If the central planning theory is Let Them Take LRT, then, um, let them take LRT. It runs right under Queen, after all.

Straight lines are good things to have in your bus system. Less nauseating for the passenger, more intuitive to navigate for the user, even easier to cartograph, since we have almost no competent transit mappers in this country any more.

And fundamentally, the Wellington routings of the local service that has been graciously permitted to remain on it, for now, aren't broken. Who in the transit-using public has been clamouring for bendier, turnier routes through the downtown core, assuming that you're even going to be allowed to bus through it post-2018 anyway? Actual transit riders know the hazard of the downtown left turn; the current plan is to add more of the damn things.

[acottawa]

There won't be zero buses, the 12, 17, and 18 are all still going to go in front of parliament

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

You can bus right past Big Ben in London, right past the National Assembly in Paris, right past the Reichstag in Berlin, right past the Capitol in Washington, but the Parliament of Canada, a national parliament and a set of Parliamentary buildings that is one of the finest in the world, nope - buses have to be prettyized out of the picture in the name of some ungodly anti-transit aesthetic and BS fears about security.

I'll challenge you on this. As a non-STO user, my interface with Wellington St is primarily as a pedestrian, and I don't think the noisy buses are an asset to the pedestrian or tourist experience.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

...and at the cost of removing an aspect of the public sphere (transit) from the ceremonial main street of the country, and letting the private (cars) floodfill the newly-vacated space.

How is having private vehicles fill the vacated space on Wellington worse than the alternative of having them fill the vacated Albert/Slater space? At least cars are quieter and, generally, less obstructive of views of Parliament for pedestrians on the south side of Wellington St. Plus, as argued before, the Albert/Slater corridor is far more useful catchment-wise than Wellington. Sure, the detour to Albert/Slater will cost some passengers, but the net ridership gain would almost certainly be positive. .

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

I'll challenge you on this. As a non-STO user, my interface with Wellington St is primarily as a pedestrian, and I don't think the noisy buses are an asset to the pedestrian or tourist experience.

I am a non-STO user and my use of Wellington is also primarily pedestrian.

Unless we're going to grass over the street (as some have called for in the past) motorized contraptions are going to use it. I see no sound policy reason for excluding transit vehicles from the set of motorized contraptions that use it.

How is having private vehicles fill the vacated space on Wellington worse than the alternative of having them fill the vacated Albert/Slater space?

In large part because of the ceremonial nature of Wellington, and the feel that comes with approaching Parliament along that street. This is something our planners talk about, but are awful at: considering how a city FEELS.

We are taking that experience away from the public user of the street, and reserving it almost entirely for the private. This is dumb.

At least cars are quieter

Than what? The ambient noise of continuous (during the day) private auto traffic is no better than the movement of transit vehicles.

Even if there is a "noise" issue, why should the public sphere be reduced because of it?

and, generally, less obstructive of views of Parliament for pedestrians on the south side of Wellington St.

Buses move.

I'm all in favour of obstructing that view even more, myself: fill in the square at Metcalfe that's been vacant for 40 years with a new, sympathetic building. Restore the curtain of trees that existed along the Wellington frontage of the Parliamentary precinct that was destroyed by Dutch Elm.

Plus, as argued before, the Albert/Slater corridor is far more useful catchment-wise than Wellington. Sure, the detour to Albert/Slater will cost some passengers, but the net ridership gain would almost certainly be positive.

Which detour to Albert/Slater?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by phil235

I have to disagree on a the Bay St. bit. At best, a lane on Bay would go southbound to Laurier, then cyclists would need to jog west and make a left hand turn at an unsignalized intersection at Percy to continue south. Not ideal. It also puts them a long way west of most destinations. That leaves no southbound cycling route between O'Connor and Percy.

I'm assuming there will still be a bike lane on Lyon south of Laurier, so if you're coming down Bay, you would have the option of jogging left on Laurier to Lyon or right to Percy.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I still do not see what the imperative is to remove buses from Wellington.

In addition to the things everyone else has mentioned, reducing bus volumes on Wellington will allow it to be narrowed to allow for a 2-way cycle track on the north side, connecting the Portage Bridge to MacKenzie.

[acottawa]

So to summarize, bus passengers who are not hill staffers are supposed to endure a slower, less convenient route so that we can make some sort of political statement by giving buses a place of honour on Wellington street.

Weird.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So to summarize, bus passengers who are not hill staffers are supposed to endure a slower, less convenient route so that we can make some sort of political statement by giving buses a place of honour on Wellington street.

Weird.

Yeah. I am not getting it either.

There will still be buses on Wellington after these changes: a few OC Transpo routes and all those tons of tour buses will remain.

As it stands now with the tour buses, OC Transpo routes and all the STO routes there are way too many buses on Wellington.

It will be a nicer place for both tourists and locals to walk with fewer buses on there.

I would surmise that few tourists use municipal buses to access the Wellington parliamentary precinct anyway, and even for those that do (in addition to locals that might) it won't be that much of a walk from the streets bus routes are being relocated to.

At worst pedestrian traffic will remain exactly the same on Wellington, at best the experience will be more human-friendly and more people will go there.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

In addition to the things everyone else has mentioned, reducing bus volumes on Wellington will allow it to be narrowed to allow for a 2-way cycle track on the north side, connecting the Portage Bridge to MacKenzie.

Exactly. The idea is to reduce the motorized traffic (not just buses) on Wellington by reducing the number of car lanes. This will make room for a cycle track. Maybe they could also widen the sidewalks to make it more pedestrian friendly.