Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Confederation Line corridor is in the urban area. Let's start with that. So stop with this 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the urban area not being serviced. Its being served. Just not the way you think it should be served.

The Confederation Line is *in* the urban area, but that's not the same thing as *serving* it.

Next, there's absolutely zero evidence presented so far that Montreal Rd has enough ridership to support rail-based higher order transit on its own. Heck, look the schedule for the #12 bus. If the corridor really was that busy, you'd see an articulated #12 bus every 5 minutes and high off-peak frequency too. That's not the case.

As I mentioned above: that used to be the service level on the former 2, until the route was "optimized" to reallocate more artics to suburban express routes.

You have no idea how badly this corridor's transit service has been bungled since the 2008 changes.

Montreal Rd. does need some improvements. It needs better bus service, queue jump lanes, signal priority, etc.

All of which have been sacrificed in the reconstruction plans to make a few dozen cycling activists happy.

Can we stick to facts and not feelings? Nobody invest billions based on feelings.

And nobody in Ottawa is willing to even spend thousands, let alone millions or billions, to address the fact: local transit within the core is deterioriating, and all of the dollars and political capital that could be devoted to even tinkering at the margins of the problem is being spent to built new BRT to the suburbs that will then be demolished and replaced with LRT to the suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

The Confederation Line really exits the urban part of Ottawa going eastward at the University of Ottawa. Not even Lees station is truly urban as the area is surrounded with a few towers in a park typical of the 1960s and 1970s.

At least Montreal Road is fairly urban going all the way out to Beacon Hill with the understanding that some of the government lands are underutilized. That does not take into consideration that we are starting to build a new community of 10,000 people just off of Montreal Road and the desperate need to encourage redevelopment of various parts of the corridor particularly in Vanier. There are already several towers within walking distance of Montreal Road and the corridor is ultimately more attractive for intensification than along the Queensway.

Nevertheless, I am not advocating one particular form of transit improvement along Montreal Road over another, however, planned reconstruction is already considering limiting even the possibility of bus lanes. My point here is that we are not even considering improving transit along the corridor. There are no studies since everything went out the window with the cancellation of the Chiarelli plan.

I am speaking my mind as a transit advocate, not a resident of the area. I want the city in general to consider better transit throughout the city. I am not particularly pleased that the savings from the Confederation Line are not being re-invested in the transit system, but rather to pay for other items in the city budget. How can we attract new riders if we are not re-investing that money into transit? It is a lost opportunity. We have already rationalized the system a few years back.

I think the Calgary example is very relevant. Modal share is a fair comparison but Calgary started out much further behind than it is today. The C-Train has made a difference and as they build the next route, they will make further advances on Ottawa's standing. New transit does attract new riders. The Confederation Line does not provide new transit. It necessarily corrects downtown congestion but the route is identical to the previous Transitways. I am not sure how reconstructing an existing transit line is going to attract the new rider. Calgary Transit also has serious weaknesses. It's bus network is considered poor and the inflexibility of the C-Train (while great) also limits its attractiveness to a degree because it does not bring great transit to everybody. This points out why the third line is going to be built, to bring better and more direct transit closer to more Calgarians. We will face this too with the Confederation Line. Those bus transfers especially during off-peak hours will not be attractive for the majority of the population.

So we invest a ton of money on one corridor while leaving the remainder with the status quo and for many, it will be worse with direct service to downtown eliminated.

In the long run, I am not satisfied that one LRT route through downtown will serve the population well.

We are creating a transit network that is dependant on too many transfers. Our prospects for Gatineau are not likely to remedy this, which will have the same issues that we will have with the Trillium Line. Depositing passengers some distance away from downtown will be a major future problem that has dogged Toronto for decades as they finally start considering a second subway through downtown.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Nevertheless, I am not advocating one particular form of transit improvement along Montreal Road over another, however, planned reconstruction is already considering limiting even the possibility of bus lanes.

Correction: That "consideration" process is over. Terminated. Fini.

The city has already decided against any improved bus lanes or transit priority on any part of Montreal Road. It is incompatible with the cycling lobby's preferred plan, and the cycling lobby already won that political fight last year.

The planning and engineering work now underway not only precludes any improvement to transit performance (as measured on the bus) along the Rideau-Montreal corridor. In fact, the plan as it stands will result in SLOWER bus performance, even if it might become marginally more consistent. (Some of the extremely slow bus movements in the morning might be reduced. Or they might not. There is no evidence of any baseline data collection that would help us measure the success or failure of the project once complete.

There may be some slight improvements to the transit experience (as measured by the user) if - and only if - there are some improvements to the woefully inadequate shelter and amenity situation. But the planners have already made it clear that shelter improvements are dependent on "available space", and much of that "available space" has already been committed to the cycling infrastructure. I remain as pessimistic and doubtful as ever that there will be any improvement on that front, either. I stand to be proven wrong.

[acottawa]

I would have a hard time classifying almost any part of Montreal Road as "urban." In the vanier section, there is no consistent section of businesses directly fronting the sidewalk and sections that do exist are broken up by car-friendly businesses surrounded by parking lots. There is a small section where highrise buildings are more frequent, but these are 60s or 70s towers in the park style suburban designs. East of Vanier it is all church-related land uses (or former church buildings surrounded by massive lawns and/or parking lots), car-related businesses or strip-mall type retail. After Aviation it is pretty much pure suburbia (although some newer apartment buildings give a hint it may be more urban in the future).

[lrt's friend]

That is why Vanier is such need of redevelopment. The missing storefronts have been the result of fires over an extended period of time. The economy of the area has been depressed for decades, which explains the concerns about the Salvation Army shelter moving there.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That is why Vanier is such need of redevelopment. The missing storefronts have been the result of fires over an extended period of time. The economy of the area has been depressed for decades, which explains the concerns about the Salvation Army shelter moving there.

Why Montreal and not Macarthur, St Laurent, Donald, Ogilve, the South end of Bank, Carling, or Merivale? Some of these other streets actually have room for a surface LRT or other "mid-priced" option.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why Montreal and not Macarthur, St Laurent, Donald, Ogilve, the South end of Bank, Carling, or Merivale? Some of these other streets actually have room for a surface LRT or other "mid-priced" option.

First of all, the route needs to go somewhere useful. Building spur lines that go from nowhere to nowhere isn't useful. The only reason the Trillium line works is that it has a major university in the middle of it and that university happened to have connectivity issues. That pretty much rules out St. Laurent.

I am not that either Donald or McArthur are much wider. They do have less traffic though but that is because they don't actually go anywhere useful without building a bridge. Donald already has the Adàwe Crossing, which would make it a great bike route but its connection to Summerset still doesn't get you all the way downtown for LRT. McArthur is better, as the LRT could run along Laurier to get downtown, but it doesn't have any room for expansion much beyond St. Laurent.

Ogilve would have been a much better option than the current one as it would still get you to most of the same destinations, but is a bit further from the pedestrian hostile Queensway.

Bank is a good option, but as you say only the south end is feasible for surface LRT and that section is already close to both the Transitway and Trillium Line. For it to be useful, you need to get it downtown, which would be expensive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

"Slightly faster ride"?

It can take an HOUR to bus the 4/5 km from Vanier to Bank Street.

Yes. Bus congestion on the Transitway can mess up your ride west of Rideau. I anticipate it'll be much smoother post-LRT.

And yes, part of the problem here is that there's no queue jumps lanes, signal priority and bus lanes. I've agreed with that part. But I don't see why solving this problem warrants rail based transit.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All of those things have been taken off the table on Montreal Road in order to make space and time on the road for a cycle track and a cycle lane.

There's a limited peak-period wesbound lane planned for Montreal.

There is NOT transit priority planned in the eastbound direction.

Again. Agree that they should do more for transit priority here.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We are making intensification dependent on transit invesment. We are also making transit investment dependent on intensification. There is a huge opportunity to increase the tax base of the city by stimulating redevelopment on the near east side of the city, which could certainly use that investment, but it won't happen unless someone can short-circuit this chicken-and-egg scenario.

That someone is not the current council or OC Transpo management, with their openly classist let-them-eat-crappy-bus-service attitude.

I don't see how it's classist at all. Nobody is getting substantially improved bus service. It's not like Montreal Rd. is being singled out here. All investment is being directed at their Transitway conversions or their other strategic corridors (like Baseline).

Now, I agree that they should do more for transit priority. But I also think they are right to prioritize high ridership corridors where they are limited dollars in play.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The pols - Fleury and Nussbaum - have jumped up and down with glee over the Montreal Road reconstruction project which prioritizes cycling over transit.

Same thing that they did on Beechwood.

So that's two once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to actually improve transit on the east side of the inner city, in the span of less than two years, that have been completely bungled by "the pols" in order to satisfy a vocal, affluent, and well-connected cycle lobby.

The "pols" are not allies in this, and as much glee as it would give me to see both Fleury and Nussbaum tossed to the curb in the next election, it's not going to change the setup of the only two roads that connect the east side to the core in the urban area: the train has left the station. Except it's not a train, not a station, and isn't even half-decent bus service.

Hey. If that's what your councillors are advocating then clearly your neighbours don't care as much about transit as you do.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Again, an excellent rebuttal to whoever is making that argument.

You keep making this argument. That they should have built the LRT on Montreal instead of converting the Transitway.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Neither are many of the neighbourhoods that we are exentding LRT to, but the east side of town, along the Rideau-Montreal corridor, is a hell of a lot more supportive of transit, if we ever build it, than the auto-centred suburbs that we're extending higher-order transit to, at the expense of urban areas.

You've just told me that people are electing politicians who prioritize bike lanes over transit. More supportive of transit? Colour me skeptical.

More to the point, transit is built for maximum ridership. Not for whomever supports transit more. If there was a genuine case for substantially more riders on Montreal road, I fully believe the Feds and province would have supported the LRT on there. As it stands, there's no way to justify the extra tunnelling cost that it would take too build on Montreal.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I would sincerely like to hear why you think I'm "planning" that.

You keep saying the tunnel is a waste. Okay. Then explain how 10 000 pphpd as a minimum will be moved through downtown without one. That's 20 0000 riders per her hour through the core at peak. I have yet to hear anybody explain how this can be accomplished using surface rail.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The cost of SHITT is on the same order of magnitude as bringing higher-order transit to the actual urban part of Ottawa.

Downtown is not urban enough for you?

And again, if you think the tunnel is unnecessary, explain how to move that many riders through the core. The Confederation line has a peak capacity nearly on par with a Toronto subway. That's what was deemed necessary in the future. You are suggesting this kind of throughput can be achieved using LRTs running on streets. Explain to the rest of us why you think that's true.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Good ol' Ottawa classism and anti-Vanierism at its finest.

So now it's classist to say that young people are moving into condos? Ottawa has a massive condo boom underway in the core. And most of those will be filled by young professionals. Just like every other city.

I expect the next boom will be condos all along the LRT for those who can't afford to live in the core.

So like I said, young people won't choose to live on Montreal. That's not classist, that's reality. I don't see see how transit oriented development is classist. Feel free to explain this one to me.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Again, a sound rebuttal to whoever is suggesting that.

Right. So we can drop the back and forth on why the LRT should have been built on Montreal?

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except that things are not fine, and there are absolutely no plans to make things fine. When it takes twice as long to bus it downtown from an inner urban or inner suburban neighbourhood....

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What ridership levels would justify it? I ask because some of these trunk routes like the 12 and 7 have very, very high riderships.

Let's just use the same standard as suburban LRTs in Toronto. At least 2500 pphpd. If an avenue can't fill an articulated bus every 5 mins, they don't need rail based transit.

Metrolinx has argued that improved bus service (non-BRT) with queue jumps, signal priority, etc. can handle up to 5000 pphpd.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Those cushy-assed suburban people are gonna be in for an awful surprise later this year when they learn that the will have to transfer at Blair, Hurdperson, or Tunney's, then.

Many will. And if you attended any of the city's consultations, you will remember there were many whiners complaining about losing a one-seat ride.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why would it have done that?

Because as long the Transitway exists, there will be demand to run service on it. Simple as that. Only a fool would ignore political realities.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

No, I'm "bitter" because sound transit solutions for people who actually live in the older, denser, more use- and economically-diverse parts of the city have been punted to the next century, while we are forced to pay for economically and urbanism-dubious LRT extensions to auto-centred suburbs.

There are plenty of folks who live in the urban part of the city who will enjoy the new service and don't share your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If the main higher-order line east out of downtown had been under the Rideau-Montreal corridor, then those 10,000 pphpd would have been riding that route, not the path of least resistance along the Queensway.

Exactly. So Rideau-Montreal does not have enough ridership to sustain rail based transit on its own. Exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The mobility and network would have been the same - just closer to where more people live and work, instead of along the margins of a freeway.

Most people don't live or work near the Rideau-Montreal corridor.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Given that Ontario has historically been bored by any thought of building mass transit in Ottawa, that is true of any route.

After what I saw at the public consultations, I don't blame them....

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The reality we live in is that we are building a suburban transit system, paid for in large part by the property taxes of the urban area which is not going to benefit in any meaningful way from it, and which will not see any improvement in transit performance because the capital budget is reserved for the suburban transit user, and the inner city roads are reserved for the suburban car driver.

Again. Parts of the urban area are seeing improvement. You are just unhappy that the parts that are seeing improvement aren't what you personally define as the "urban area". City planners don't cater to personal definitions.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The city's definition of "urban" is largely 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, and a Baseline BRT is still not going to benefit the urban part of Ottawa very much.

Yes, yes. We'd all like the planners to use whatever terms we personally define them as.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There is everything classist about the Ottawa attitude towards its inner areas, especially the economically disadvantage ones.

Again. Nothing classist about spending transit dollars in a manner that serves the most riders possible.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All together now! Route! 12! Has the highest! Ridership! Of any! Non-Transitway! Route!

An irrelevant point if the ridership doesn't cross the threshold necessary for further investment. I doubt it's even close to 2000 pphpd.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That is in part because OC Transpo has driven Montreal Road transit so firmly into the ground in the past decade that many would-be riders have simply given up: the former route 2 along Rideau-Montreal used to average one artic every 7-8 minutes from about 6:30 in the morning to midnight. After the route was split - sorry, "optimized" - OC Transpo slashed the number of runs by more than 15%, and further slashed capacity by reducing the number of those runs running on artics. The resulting damage to the schedule, and the crush-loading, forced a lot of people off the route.

So prior to optimization, demand was only sufficient to fill one artic every 7 mins? And this is the basis for our back and forth discussion for higher order transit on Montreal? At a generous definition that would be ~1700 pphpd.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The Confederation Line is *in* the urban area, but that's not the same thing as *serving* it.

Nah. That's just your personal definition of service.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

As I mentioned above: that used to be the service level on the former 2, until the route was "optimized" to reallocate more artics to suburban express routes.

You have no idea how badly this corridor's transit service has been bungled since the 2008 changes.

By your own definition of service, ridership was around 1700 pphpd. That's not even close to substantial enough to justify rail service.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And nobody in Ottawa is willing to even spend thousands, let alone millions or billions, to address the fact: local transit within the core is deterioriating, and all of the dollars and political capital that could be devoted to even tinkering at the margins of the problem is being spent to built new BRT to the suburbs that will then be demolished and replaced with LRT to the suburbs.

Yes. It's unfortunate that we aren't thinking more about how to improve bus service.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would have a hard time classifying almost any part of Montreal Road as "urban." In the vanier section, there is no consistent section of businesses directly fronting the sidewalk

You must have missed the portion between the river and the parkway. Sure, there's some suburbany-type welcome-to-my-parking-lot properties along that stretch as well, but that's no different from Richmond-Wellington.

Even east of the Parkway, there's a lot of tight-to-the-street frontage. It doesn't turn truly suburban until about de l'Eglise.

and sections that do exist are broken up by car-friendly businesses surrounded by parking lots. There is a small section where highrise buildings are more frequent

And the connection between highrise and urban street-level form is... ?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Why Montreal and not Macarthur, St Laurent, Donald, Ogilve, the South end of Bank, Carling, or Merivale? Some of these other streets actually have room for a surface LRT or other "mid-priced" option.

If you can fit a streetcar on any of the 18th-century streets of old York in downtown Toronto, you can fit a streetcar on Montreal Road.

If - and this is key - you are willing to gore one or two other transportation oxen along the way.

But the city is not. Despite the BS in the official plan, cars take priority over transit, and now, within the non-car universe, bikes take priority over transit, too.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Montreal Road has enough density to warrant better service which would increase ridership but the city of Ottawa focuses more on suburbs.
I have already shown enough proof, you just choose to ignore it.

What proof? Show some ridership numbers.

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

It is you who is focused on feelings not me, you have not proved that Montreal Road or Bank Street shouldn't get LRT. The real reason they don't get LRT is political not common sense.

No. The real reason is a lack of ridership.

When Uhuniau presents a data point where there's only 1700 pphpd, I think my argument is made. One look at the bus schedule shows you there's not enough demand to justify LRT.

Again. Just because you perceive a bus route to be busy, that does not mean there's actually enough ridership to justify rail based transit. Again. Facts > feelings.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

You must have missed the portion between the river and the parkway. Sure, there's some suburbany-type welcome-to-my-parking-lot properties along that stretch as well, but that's no different from Richmond-Wellington.

Even east of the Parkway, there's a lot of tight-to-the-street frontage. It doesn't turn truly suburban until about de l'Eglise.



And the connection between highrise and urban street-level form is... ?

Three gas stations, a suburban-style Tims, two strip malls and a motel in a three block strip. It is hard to see most people recognizing that as an urban area.

I take your point that Westboro looked like that several decades ago (and there are still some remnants of that era) so there is a possibility it could head in a more urban direction in the future.

A suburban style high rise looks a certain way: it is built back from the street, surrounded by grass and/or parking. It doesn't have much connection to the street and residents are often tied to cars.

An urban-style high rise is usually built close to the street, has some sort of street level interaction and its residents are often pedestrians.

Most of the Vanier highrises look like the former (and like other suburban highrise developments around the city).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If you can fit a streetcar on any of the 18th-century streets of old York in downtown Toronto, you can fit a streetcar on Montreal Road.

If - and this is key - you are willing to gore one or two other transportation oxen along the way.

But the city is not. Despite the BS in the official plan, cars take priority over transit, and now, within the non-car universe, bikes take priority over transit, too.

Yes you could, but those legacy Toronto streetcars in mixed traffic aren't any faster than a bus and are worse than a bus in many ways (cannot be detoured or get around obstacles and any obstruction shuts down the whole line). Some cities maintain existing mixed traffic streetcars, but nobody builds new ones anymore.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Can I make a suggestion?

Sure

Originally Posted by acottawa

that people number their points?

Wait a minute, who made you the boss?

Originally Posted by acottawa

so we don't have 50 quotes in each post?

I think you're exaggerating

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Bus congestion on the Transitway can mess up your ride west of Rideau. I anticipate it'll be much smoother post-LRT.

Transitway?

Are you .... familiar with where Vanier is?

And yes, part of the problem here is that there's no queue jumps lanes, signal priority and bus lanes. I've agreed with that part. But I don't see why solving this problem warrants rail based transit.

In the mid-to-long term, we need to have an URBAN transit system in the URBAN part of the city. This corridor is, to my mind, a priority, because (A) the choke points on the surface are physically and politically insurmountable, and (B) there is more opportunity for transit-oriented urban redevelopment along this corridor than anywhere else in town.

But the cash has been devoted to the suburbs for the next century, and city hall and transit planners simply do not care about this part of town.

I don't see how it's classist at all. Nobody is getting substantially improved bus service. It's not like Montreal Rd. is being singled out here.

Yes, it is: The Montreal Road bus service was more heavily slashed than any other service in the "optimization" of 2008, and the Montreal Road reconstruction project, which was held out as the solution for transit woes, is a bust because the city has a deep-rooted classist attitude towards Vanier.

Know why the 2 was split in 2008? Because the gentry in gentrified Westboro and gentrifying Hintonburg no longer wanted to share "their" bus route with Vanier.

Now, I agree that they should do more for transit priority. But I also think they are right to prioritize high ridership corridors where they are limited dollars in play.

Clap along: Montreal! Road! IS a high-ridership! Corridor!

You keep making this argument. That they should have built the LRT on Montreal instead of converting the Transitway.

No, they should have built it under it.

You keep saying the tunnel is a waste. Okay. Then explain how 10 000 pphpd as a minimum will be moved through downtown without one.

What "tunnel" are you referring to?

I do not think the downtown LRT tunnel is a waste.

I think the proposed SHITT tunnel is.

Do you know what the SHITT tunnel is? (Hint: not the downtown LRT tunnel.)

I don't need to explain that thing you want me to explain, because I am not opposed to a downtown transit tunnel. I think it's awesome, and should have been part of our transit plan right from the 1970s on.

Downtown is not urban enough for you?

It's awesome to have mass-transit in and out of the office-tower core, yes.

It is not awesome to not have mass-transit serving the rest of the urban area: the mixed-use districts strung out along the main axes, of the same type which have higher-order transit access in other cities.

And again, if you think the tunnel is unnecessary,

I don't. Why do you keep erecting strawpersons?

I am against the SHITT tunnel. That's not the downtown LRT tunnel.

So now it's classist to say that young people are moving into condos?

Huh?

So like I said, young people won't choose to live on Montreal. That's not classist, that's reality. I don't see see how transit oriented development is classist. Feel free to explain this one to me.

Neglecting the transit needs of an entire city district, and an entire former municipality - make no doubt, this is what's happening in Vanier and the east side - is happening because of rampant classism, yes.

OC Transpo slashed service in the area because they knew they could get away with it.

OC Transpo and the city have ignored years of entreaties to ameliorate the situation, again because they know they can get away with it.

Evidence?

My own experience, compared to that of my co-workers, and the experience of others in the area.

It is not at all uncommon for a surface-running bus trip from Vanier or Overbrook or New Edinburgh to take 45 to 60 minutes to get to, say, Bank and Laurier.

Do you ride any of these buses regularly? What times of day and week?

Many will. And if you attended any of the city's consultations, you will remember there were many whiners complaining about losing a one-seat ride.

Good for them. Let them suffer along with the rest of us who have to stand for five km on a jerky bus, ridden by a jerky driver, because OC Transpo won't put enough capacity on the route to meet demand, and won't put any extras into service to relieve the overcrowding and crush-loading that is the daily experience of anyone boarding a wesbound bus most mornings once they pass the cemeteries.

Because as long the Transitway exists, there will be demand to run service on it. Simple as that. Only a fool would ignore political realities.

Yes, but the fact remains: had the main eastern mass-transit link been built under Montreal Road, it would have taken the same ridership that now runs along the path of least resistance, just as the Bloor-Danforth line in Toronto carries the east-west traffic that might otherwise have gone under Queen or any other east-west route once contemplated for the Toronto subway project.

You seem to be unfamiliar with conditional expressions.

There are plenty of folks who live in the urban part of the city who will enjoy the new service and don't share your own opinion.

Good for them. Maybe some day they'll stop cheaping out and will actually help pay for better local transit within the core.

Again. Nothing classist about spending transit dollars in a manner that serves the most riders possible.

There is everything classist about a city that keeps punting budgetary and political decisions that would benefit a poor district, simply because it's a poor district. And that's what's happening.

So prior to optimization, demand was only sufficient to fill one artic every 7 mins?

No, it was at least sufficient to do so. Post-"optimization" a lot of people simply gave up on the "optimized" 12, or on transit altogether.

And this is the basis for our back and forth discussion for higher order transit on Montreal? At a generous definition that would be ~1700 pphpd.

This would be another good reason for OCTranspo to be transparent with its ridership data. But they're not.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Can I make a suggestion that people number their points so we don't have 50 quotes in each post?

Quotes put the responses in context.

#teamquote

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes you could, but those legacy Toronto streetcars in mixed traffic aren't any faster than a bus

Which is why you don't run them in "mixed traffic". You give them priority on the street, as has been done with the King Street project in Toronto, which has resulted in a massively improved quality and capacity of service, for hella cheap.

The same thing could be done even using bus-based transit on the main Ottawa urban axes now - especially the perennially-congested Bank and Rideau-Montreal corridors - if there were any political will. But there isn't. The drivers would scream blue murder, and even a few million dollars worth of signal changes, paint, and parking-meter removals would cause the suburban councillors to veto anything in this direction.

and are worse than a bus in many ways (cannot be detoured or get around obstacles and any obstruction shuts down the whole line).

Um.... that's really no different than the bus-based status quo. Buses that get blocked on Rideau Street or Bank, by totally preventable things like jerk-🞵🞵🞵 delivery drivers, tour buses, box-blocking private motorists, protests, etc., are just as immobile as a street railway vehicle moving on fixed tracks.

And the "flexibility" of buses, that they can be so easily detoured, is itself a problem: just try and get around downtown Ottawa by transit during the infernal "street party" season.

Some cities maintain existing mixed traffic streetcars, but nobody builds new ones anymore.

Sure about that?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If you can fit a streetcar on any of the 18th-century streets of old York in downtown Toronto, you can fit a streetcar on Montreal Road.

If - and this is key - you are willing to gore one or two other transportation oxen along the way.

But the city is not. Despite the BS in the official plan, cars take priority over transit, and now, within the non-car universe, bikes take priority over transit, too.

LRVs today are wider than the 18th century. But that's not really the issue. The issue is the fact that Montreal Rd allows parking on street. So effectively, you end up with one lane of free flowing traffic through Vanier.

Take that away and bus service would be just as effective streetcars. If not more so, since they can maneuver around obstructions. You don't need rail to improve service. You would think a city with so much BRT would get that.

Again. I fail to see what rail based transit would do for Montreal Rd that a proper bus service with queue jumps, curbside bus lanes and signal priority won't. Streetcars are only needed when your ridership gets to a point where you can't run enough artics to keep up. If they were running a full artic every 3-4 minutes, then we could argue that they need to switch to trams.

People should be advocating for a proper bus service. It's easy and cheap to implement. Doesn't require substantial funding from anyone. And they could do that for the entire Rideau/Montreal corridor in a year.

[lrt's friend]

Now that we have been lectured ad nauseum that the Confederation Line will be the solution to all our needs for the next generation if we are going downtown and that all future rapid transit will be in the suburbs, we can now just wait for the grand opening and the enormous spike in ridership that will surely come.