Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

What will be interesting is how much capacity the Confederation Line has in real life. Metrolinx considers the Citadis to have room for 540ish in a two car train vs our estimate of 600. How many people will squeeze on in real life is still a mystery. If it can't move as many people as claimed, it might increase the chances of a second east-west line in the future.

This is not a huge issue at all. Just add 10% more vehicles and the capacity problem is solved. That's buying an extra 3 trains. And adding an extra 1-2 trains of service per hour. The line is built to handle those frequencies.

I've raised the capacity issue before. And it's why I argue they should have procured longer trains.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would argue that only the uOttawa campus is a significant driver of ridership and a route to Montreal Rd could be diverted to serve it. As discussed elsewhere, shopping malls are in decline (and few use transit to go to them anyway) and even with HFR, there will only be 2 trains an hour.

As for development opportunities, I would argue that Montreal Rd has far more than the Queensway does. The Queensway itself acts as a significant barrier for walk-ability to the station.

Have you ever been to St Laurent station? It is busy day and night and there is constant flow in and out of the mall.

I think over the longer term infill type redevelopment opportunities are less than some of the brownfield opportunities. Montreal road also has a lot of land tied up in institutional uses.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Give me the stats to prove your point

Neighbourhood density stats are here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neighbourhoods_in_Ottawa

[Radster]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I partly agree with you, but I think in many European cities there is more of a culture of getting out of the house in the evening. Partly this is weather related, partly this is density related (a suburb in Europe tends to be more dense and can often support a local high street), partly this is house related (a European at a particular income point will generally have less house than a Canadian). But I think a lot of it has to do with the relative cost of food and drink, where a glass of wine can be had at a local place for a few euros (and may well include some snacks).

Lets not forget the culture is different when it comes to grocery shopping and running small errands. In Europe, very often this is a daily task, easily done on foot with or without the use of public transit, whereas here in North America, this is mainly a weekly task, done using a car at big box stores.

[lrt's friend]

We cannot argue that total grade separation is needed to serve urban neighbourhoods while only partial separation is sufficient for Baseline or Carling.

We cannot argue that streets are not wide enough for street running LRT while we still permit on street parking.

We cannot argue that running single car trains is inefficient on centretown corridors while we continue to operate 40 foot buses on those same corridors.

We cannot argue that being within 5 km (or even 2 km) of a LRT station is great, when your walk to the LRT station involves crossing 3 or 4 bus routes that provide more direct service.

We cannot argue that Ottawa's downtown will be vibrant enough if we just build more condos downtown. Make downtown more accessible by transit and people and attractions will come.

We should not argue that building additional lines is undesirable because it may drain ridership from the Confederation Line. How else do we actually increase ridership?

We should not compare ourselves with North American cities which generally have poor transit systems and mostly abysmal downtowns. For those with good downtowns, they have rail lines to multiple parts of the city.

We should not argue that suburban malls will mostly die because of Amazon and that every mall should be demolished and replaced with condos. Where will the public meeting places be or will we all just stay home? This really paints a bleak picture for the future.

When we talk about Europe, we should not use Prague as the typical model. Downtown Prague is a museum and teaming with tourists. I have been to cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Gothenburg, Oslo, Zurich and pretty well every city in Poland where there is very strong transit cultures. Sure, there are lots of tourists, but I generally travel in early spring when there are fewer tourists and I see the locals crowding into the downtown areas. It can be shocking to see how crowded pedestrian only High streets are, which make Sparks Street look so bleak. In every case, those cities offer rail transit between many locations and downtown. Some of those lines may be subways, but many are surface lines. When are we going to get beyond giving cars priority? When we decide to provide an alternative, transit seems not to be considered and is forced to continue to share reduced car lanes. Bikes are a great alternative in many European cities but we have to consider Ottawa's harsher climate (in both summer and winter) and less flat geography.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've raised the capacity issue before. And it's why I argue they should have procured longer trains.

and that's why I argue the opposite, shorter (automated) trains are better, they mean that the only way to add capacity is to increase frequency. OC Transpo has too much history with scheduling decisions like: 1 articulated bus every 10 minutes provides the same level of service as 2 40-footers every 5 minutes since it provides adequate/equivalent capacity.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When we talk about Europe, we should not use Prague as the typical model. Downtown Prague is a museum and teaming with tourists. I have been to cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Gothenburg, Oslo, Zurich and pretty well every city in Poland where there is very strong transit cultures. Sure, there are lots of tourists, but I generally travel in early spring when there are fewer tourists and I see the locals crowding into the downtown areas. It can be shocking to see how crowded pedestrian only High streets are, which make Sparks Street look so bleak. In every case, those cities offer rail transit between many locations and downtown. Some of those lines may be subways, but many are surface lines.

Indeed, using Prague, or Paris, or Amsterdam, is not really representative of Europe, these are tourist meccas. Best to use large, less touristy cities to get the real picture. I was born and raised in Gdansk, Poland, and have lived there for a good decade in the 80s, I return every couple years, and yes, public transit is amazing in Poland. You don't need a car at all. And they keep on expanding - in Warsaw the subway is expanding at a faster pace than our LRT. Plus, their surface streetcar lines are in constant expansion and upgrade modes, in pretty much most large Polish cities. But, they have something we don't, and that's urban population densities. Yes they have big box stores now in the outskirts of big cities, but that's not the where most shopping is done. They have issues with car traffic too, but at least, people have options, and owning a car is not a necessity.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Radster

Lets not forget the culture is different when it comes to grocery shopping and running small errands. In Europe, very often this is a daily task, easily done on foot with or without the use of public transit, whereas here in North America, this is mainly a weekly task, done using a car at big box stores.

As a single person, I tend to shop more frequently for fewer items. But, I still have to drive because transit is not efficient enough.

Last night, I went to one of those big box stores that are absolutely huge but I get frustrated because walking is so far to pick up the few items that I needed. I prefer shopping in small stores such as Farm Boy because of that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should not argue that suburban malls will mostly die because of Amazon and that every mall should be demolished and replaced with condos. Where will the public meeting places be or will we all just stay home? This really paints a bleak picture for the future.
.

Some malls will die but many will continue to exist. They'll just transition away from the "material" towards the "experiential".

I was at a conference a few years ago where a guy was talking about technology, societal change, etc.

One thing he said that was interesting was that "old stuff" rarely dies even if it gets replaced by something newer and allegedly better.

It just gets refocused on its "core advantage".

He used the example of radio, which was not killed off by the advent of television.

Sure, when TV came along families stopped sitting together in the living room listening to radio programs, but radio still lives on today because it's good to listen to when cooking, doing the dishes, driving or at work. Situations where watching TV is impractical or not permitted.

Many malls will survive by refocusing on what they offer that online retailing for example cannot.

This will likely mean smaller stores where people can actually see merchandise or try on clothing, accompanied by a huge growth of their community meeting place, leisure and cultural functions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As a single person, I tend to shop more frequently for fewer items. But, I still have to drive because transit is not efficient enough.

Last night, I went to one of those big box stores that are absolutely huge but I get frustrated because walking is so far to pick up the few items that I needed. I prefer shopping in small stores such as Farm Boy because of that.

To use an old term, we're a "nuclear family" with teenaged kids.

My wife and I go to the grocery store probably five out of every seven days. We often buy our stuff fresh the day of for that night's meal and the following day's lunches.

Our kids are busy with activities several nights a week and on the weekends but we're lucky in that our commutes are short and easy - which allows for a quick stop by the nearby grocery store or stores after work.

I suppose that a lot of the "stocking up" once a week at big boxes like many North Americans do is related to living far away from work and having hellishly long commutes where both parents struggle to get home for 6 pm or even later, and also have to leave extremely early in the morning.

So I guess that once again... it's all about transportation!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Radster

Indeed, using Prague, or Paris, or Amsterdam, is not really representative of Europe, these are tourist meccas. Best to use large, less touristy cities to get the real picture. I was born and raised in Gdansk, Poland, and have lived there for a good decade in the 80s, I return every couple years, and yes, public transit is amazing in Poland. You don't need a car at all. And they keep on expanding - in Warsaw the subway is expanding at a faster pace than our LRT. Plus, their surface streetcar lines are in constant expansion and upgrade modes, in pretty much most large Polish cities. But, they have something we don't, and that's urban population densities. Yes they have big box stores now in the outskirts of big cities, but that's not the where most shopping is done. They have issues with car traffic too, but at least, people have options, and owning a car is not a necessity.

This is the chicken and egg dilemma. You need density to support quality transit, but you cannot build density without quality transit.

The problem is we are building quality transit generally on corridors that don't serve dense neighbourhoods, because they are or were undesirable corridors along old rail lines or the Queensway. We have done that because it is cheaper and because we have gotten so far behind since we ripped out the streetcars. As result, most of our denser neighbourhoods are not being served by quality transit and what transit we are offering is being bogged down more and more by traffic. This problem was identified even back in the latter days of streetcars and one of the reasons for their removal.

This is why there is an ongoing complaint by inner city residents that they don't benefit from the Confederation Line, but because we got so far behind, we don't have the money to do things right.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I take your point, but a lot of drivers of ridership are along the Queensway corridor. Along the highway there are two shopping malls, a train station, an Ottawau campus, several high density housing clusters and a number of brownfield, greyfield and greenfield sites. On Montreal Road there isn't a whole lot to drive ridership.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I would argue that only the uOttawa campus is a significant driver of ridership and a route to Montreal Rd could be diverted to serve it. As discussed elsewhere, shopping malls are in decline (and few use transit to go to them anyway) and even with HFR, there will only be 2 trains an hour.

As for development opportunities, I would argue that Montreal Rd has far more than the Queensway does. The Queensway itself acts as a significant barrier for walk-ability to the station.

Malls may not be doing as well as they did. But they remain trip generators. And more to the point in the case of Ottawa, that malls in the east end are all transit hubs. Moving the bus terminal up from St. Laurent would add another $100 million. And if this wasn't done, we'd still have hundreds of buses per hour going through the core, along with 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ridership on a Montreal LRT corridor.

ACottawa is absolutely right. The current Transitway corridor lines up so many trip generators really well. This is exactly why I disagree with the notion that Montreal would make more sense. There's absolutely no way to justify an extra $1.2 billion on whatever ridership, if any, is gained from a Montreal corridor.

In the long run too, I think the Transitway offers much more TOD potential than Montreal. People act like Montreal is some dense street. It's a rather suburban avenue. Heck, most of Rideau looks like a suburban avenue in Scarborough.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is the chicken and egg dilemma. You need density to support quality transit, but you cannot build density without quality transit.

I think that is true. But it is also extremely difficult to change the character of an established neighbourhood. Between zoning restrictions, NIMBYs, heritage considerations it is hard to increase the density in any meaningful way.

Transit-friendly cities like Paris got that way because Haussmann and equivalents across Europe bulldozed huge swaths of the city to make way for the 6 story buildings that characterize the city (and put thousands of people in walking distance of each metro station).

It is also unclear whether any significant number of people in Ottawa want higher densities. People here are very attached to their backyards and detached houses. This particularly true of inner city neighbourhoods.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot argue that total grade separation is needed to serve urban neighbourhoods while only partial separation is sufficient for Baseline or Carling.

Nonsense. The context is very different. Rideau and Montreal, west of St. Laurent aren't as wide as Baseline or Carling.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot argue that streets are not wide enough for street running LRT while we still permit on street parking.

Montreal and Rideau would not be wide enough even if there was no street parking. They have the same width as Eglinton through the central portion in Toronto. And that's being tunneled.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot argue that running single car trains is inefficient on centretown corridors while we continue to operate 40 foot buses on those same corridors.

Yes we can. The Confederation Line at launch will be the busiest LRT line in North America. It will have 10 - 11 000 pphpd, with an ultimate limit of 24 000 pphpd. For comparison the Yonge Subway in Toronto is at 30 000 pphpd. There is absolutely no way to support that kind of throughput with surface light rail running in the media of an avenue.

I challenge anyone to show me an LRT that funnels 11000 riders on a non-grade separated and non-segregated ROW. I'm doubtful that this is even done in Europe or Asia.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot argue that being within 5 km (or even 2 km) of a LRT station is great, when your walk to the LRT station involves crossing 3 or 4 bus routes that provide more direct service.

This is a ridiculous metric. It's basically an argument for LRTs to be built every 2km apart so that nobody has to cross a bus line with more direct service.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should not compare ourselves with North American cities which generally have poor transit systems and mostly abysmal downtowns. For those with good downtowns, they have rail lines to multiple parts of the city.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot argue that Ottawa's downtown will be vibrant enough if we just build more condos downtown.

Yes we can. There's plenty of evidence from other cities worldwide that the key to a vibrant core is the number of people who live there, not accessibility to the area by transit. Transit to the core will never make it a vibrant area. It'll simply replicate what a huge chunk of Ottawa's downtown is today: dead after 6pm.

The only reason that people think transit matters to vibrancy of the core, is because cities that are great with incorporating high density residential areas in their cores, are often, also great with transit to the core.

You don't even need to look elsewhere. Transit to the core, in Ottawa, has not improved in decades. And is arguably getting worse with bus congestion. Yet, downtown today is far more vibrant than say 20 years ago. Is anybody going to suggest that downtown Ottawa was great in the 90s? And the only change? More residents in the core.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should not argue that building additional lines is undesirable because it may drain ridership from the Confederation Line. How else do we actually increase ridership?

This is a strawman. Who has argued this? Nobody is arguing against building additional lines because of ridership competition. What is being debated is whether those additional lines stand on their own merits.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should not argue that suburban malls will mostly die because of Amazon and that every mall should be demolished and replaced with condos. Where will the public meeting places be or will we all just stay home? This really paints a bleak picture for the future.

Malls aren't meeting places. They are shopping places. Those malls will be redeveloped into communities that have amenities that residents will use more regularly than the mall. Most older cities in Europe and Asia don't have malls. Are you going to suggest they lack meeting spaces and have a bleak future because of that?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When we talk about Europe, we should not use Prague as the typical model. Downtown Prague is a museum and teaming with tourists. I have been to cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Gothenburg, Oslo, Zurich and pretty well every city in Poland where there is very strong transit cultures. Sure, there are lots of tourists, but I generally travel in early spring when there are fewer tourists and I see the locals crowding into the downtown areas. It can be shocking to see how crowded pedestrian only High streets are, which make Sparks Street look so bleak. In every case, those cities offer rail transit between many locations and downtown. Some of those lines may be subways, but many are surface lines. When are we going to get beyond giving cars priority? When we decide to provide an alternative, transit seems not to be considered and is forced to continue to share reduced car lanes. Bikes are a great alternative in many European cities but we have to consider Ottawa's harsher climate (in both summer and winter) and less flat geography.

A lot of Europe's transit is not, however, on light rail or metros. It's on suburban rail using existing rail corridors. Those are always prioritized for development, above all else, in Europe. And primarily because of their low cost and ease of construction/development. That should sound familiar when we talk about converting the Transitway.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As a single person, I tend to shop more frequently for fewer items. But, I still have to drive because transit is not efficient enough.

Last night, I went to one of those big box stores that are absolutely huge but I get frustrated because walking is so far to pick up the few items that I needed. I prefer shopping in small stores such as Farm Boy because of that.

The real issue here is the lack of grocery stores that are on the transit line. And where they are located relative to the station, when they are in the vicinity. This will change with the Confederation Line. With buses being varied on timing and seating, nobody wants to get on/off to get groceries usually. I think this will change once the LRT comes in. Farm Boy at Rideau Centre is leading the way here. Kudos to them on planning ahead. They've also got a store at Place D'Orleans which will benefit from the LRT extension there.

It'll be interesting to see if mall managers elsewhere in Ottawa figure it out. Especially the malls that are at hubs. St.Laurent's owners would be smart to get a grocery store in their mall ASAP. Loblaws should work with owners of Gloucester Centre to redevelop their store and move it closer to the station. Ditto for the Farm Boy at Place D'Orleans. And if there's any smarts with the management at Bayshore, they should be courting a grocery right now. Walmart won't cut it.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is the chicken and egg dilemma. You need density to support quality transit, but you cannot build density without quality transit.

No. You need ridership to support multi-billion dollar transit investments. Density usually helps you get ridership. But it's not the only way to get ridership. Feeder services can do the job, with buses providing feed. This is exactly what is common in most North American cities, and what is being done in Ottawa.

That said, I do expect we'll see a lot more density around our transit stations going forward.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem is we are building quality transit generally on corridors that don't serve dense neighbourhoods, because they are or were undesirable corridors along old rail lines or the Queensway. We have done that because it is cheaper and because we have gotten so far behind since we ripped out the streetcars. As result, most of our denser neighbourhoods are not being served by quality transit and what transit we are offering is being bogged down more and more by traffic. This problem was identified even back in the latter days of streetcars and one of the reasons for their removal.

This is why there is an ongoing complaint by inner city residents that they don't benefit from the Confederation Line, but because we got so far behind, we don't have the money to do things right.

Anybody who thinks Montreal Road has sufficient density to support transit hasn't gotten around much. Montreal Road is a typical suburban avenue by all but Ottawa standards. Same for even a lot of Rideau. A few apartment buildings strung out along the way, does not make it dense neighbourhood. What exactly is dense about this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4463264,...7eZfoqLdA0BaOAjSTv26Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And as acottawa pointed out, there are limits to densification along Montreal, because of institutional usage along the corridor. Far better to pursue a model of nodal densification with the Transitway corridor.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Have you ever been to St Laurent station? It is busy day and night and there is constant flow in and out of the mall.

As a transfer station, it could just as easily be located further north. As for the flow in and out of the mall, the only reasonable way in or out of the station by foot is via the mall, so that hardly tells you anything.

I think over the longer term infill type redevelopment opportunities are less than some of the brownfield opportunities.

What brownfield opportunities are you talking about? Are they within easy walking distance of the stations without any major obstacles (like highway or train tracks)? Assuming you are using the North American definition of brownfield land,
how badly contaminated is it?

Montreal road also has a lot of land tied up in institutional uses.

Providing transit service to institutions isn't a bad thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Anybody who thinks Montreal Road has sufficient density to support transit hasn't gotten around much. Montreal Road is a typical suburban avenue by all but Ottawa standards. Same for even a lot of Rideau. A few apartment buildings strung out along the way, does not make it dense neighbourhood. What exactly is dense about this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4463264,...7eZfoqLdA0BaOAjSTv26Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

.

That's not really a good example, and is a lot further east than the Montreal Rd. corridor that people are talking about as dense.

This is more like it:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4361556,-...HT7rzvXfOt6YvrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It's not really that different than many of the corridors in Montreal and Toronto that have métro or subway service.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5780448,-...n1QFyuJd0U1Xazw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As a transfer station, it could just as easily be located further north. As for the flow in and out of the mall, the only reasonable way in or out of the station by foot is via the mall, so that hardly tells you anything.

A transfer station on an isolated intersection across from a cemetery may be less appealing to people than a transfer station next to a shopping mall. Mall-based transfer stations are pretty common.

You see a lot more people entering and existing the mall at the station than you do exiting the parking lot on foot, so I would not draw the conclusion that it is mostly pedestrians. It may well be a lot of people killing time waiting for their bus, but again I think that improves the transit experience.

Originally Posted by roger1818

What brownfield opportunities are you talking about? Are they within easy walking distance of the stations without any major obstacles (like highway or train tracks)? Assuming you are using the North American definition of brownfield land,
how badly contaminated is it?

Brownfield
Hurdman, former MTO site across from St Laurent (now owned by the feds),

Greyfield
Former RCMP facilities, pretty much everything around Cyrville station that isn't the Brownstone development, most of the Gloucester Centre, possible parts of the telsat campus. West side of Cummings south of the power line (partly greenfield as well)

Greenfield
most of the area north of the transit line between the parkway and Gloucester Centre.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Providing transit service to institutions isn't a bad thing.

Not per se, but most of the institutional uses along Montreal are not heavy drivers of transit (a cemetery, a convent, CMHC, NRC).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It'll be interesting to see if mall managers elsewhere in Ottawa figure it out. Especially the malls that are at hubs. St.Laurent's owners would be smart to get a grocery store in their mall ASAP. Loblaws should work with owners of Gloucester Centre to redevelop their store and move it closer to the station. Ditto for the Farm Boy at Place D'Orleans. And if there's any smarts with the management at Bayshore, they should be courting a grocery right now. Walmart won't cut it.

IMHO only smaller grocery stores have synergy with transit. I think Farmboy will be successful that way. Loblaws is too big for someone to quickly stop by and pick up a few things for dinner tonight and lunches tomorrow. It is geared more towards the weekly massive grocery run where you pick up all of the staples and supplies you need for the week/month.

Anybody who thinks Montreal Road has sufficient density to support transit hasn't gotten around much. Montreal Road is a typical suburban avenue by all but Ottawa standards. Same for even a lot of Rideau. A few apartment buildings strung out along the way, does not make it dense neighbourhood.

Anybody who thinks the Queensway has sufficient density to support transit hasn't gotten around much either. Most people who will use the LRT will transfer to it from a bus. What route the LRT takes after they make that transfer is irrelevant as long as it is reasonably direct and goes where they want to go. The argument is that Montreal road would be the better route (admittedly more expensive). It is a bit of a pointless argument now though as we are committed to the current route.

What exactly is dense about this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4463264,...7eZfoqLdA0BaOAjSTv26Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Oh please. Anyone can pick a view that has low density in Ottawa. Here is one from Blair Station:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4315321,-75.6092356,42a,35y,92.31h,76.46t/data=!3m1!1e3

That is green belt and will not likely ever be developed. At least the view you picked on Montreal rd has potential for development. If you want to see existing density on Montreal Rd, here is a better view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4399411,-75.6578464,147a,35y,154.69h,62.69t/data=!3m1!1e3

Three apartment buildings within 300 m and in the foreground is the where the proposed Sally Ann shelter is going. There is also lots of room for TOD.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that is true. But it is also extremely difficult to change the character of an established neighbourhood. Between zoning restrictions, NIMBYs, heritage considerations it is hard to increase the density in any meaningful way.

Transit-friendly cities like Paris got that way because Haussmann and equivalents across Europe bulldozed huge swaths of the city to make way for the 6 story buildings that characterize the city (and put thousands of people in walking distance of each metro station).

It is also unclear whether any significant number of people in Ottawa want higher densities. People here are very attached to their backyards and detached houses. This particularly true of inner city neighbourhoods.

A transit based community would automatically be denser without necessarily making people live in a denser situation. How? By reducing the 6 and 8 lane wide boulevards, reducing the size of parking lots and eliminating clover leafs that waste so much land in the suburbs.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4399411,-75.6578464,147a,35y,154.69h,62.69t/data=!3m1!1e3

Three apartment buildings within 300 m and in the foreground is the where the proposed Sally Ann shelter is going. There is also lots of room for TOD.

But if you zoom out it is all two story detached houses (maybe some semis) in every direction.