Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

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.

Because the operational savings from the Confederation Line are going to be redirected to other city priorities other than transit.

[lrt's friend]

I do want to point out that Rideau Street connects to Montreal Road and there already is a bus every couple of minutes on that part of the same corridor. Also, transit service to the new Waterridge community will specifically be redirected off of Montreal Road because traffic conditions render a more direct route via Montreal Road as too slow.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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).

Exactly. They are called "towers in a park". All the rage in the 70s and 80s. Having grown up in Toronto, I find it laughable that anybody thinks Vanier is dense enough to warrant substantial transit investment. I can show you dozens of avenues in Toronto that are far more dense than Vanier. And none of them will ever see anything more than a bus every 5 mins.

Originally Posted by acottawa

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.

Indeed. I don't get why anybody thinks streetcars are all that great when they aren't on an exclusive ROW. No different than a bus. The only difference is perhaps the perceived level of comfort being in a larger vehicle than a bus.

I would take a bus every 5 mins over a streetcar every 10 mins everyday. Especially in the weather that Ottawa has. Hopefully we see some serious effort to improve bus frequencies post-LRT.

To me the biggest flaw in Ottawa is not some perceived anti-classist slight to Vanier. It's the fact that bus frequencies are ridiculously low all over the city. And given Ottawa's climate, that's painful. Who the hell will want to regularly take transit when they have to wait in the cold for 15 mins. There should not be any route in Ottawa with a frequency worse than every 10 minutes. Should be 5 minutes at peak or on busier routes.

Higher frequency is what will completely change the transit experience in Ottawa. When you can head down to a stop and not bother looking at your watch, that's when you know you have a decent transit service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Because the operational savings from the Confederation Line are going to be redirected to other city priorities other than transit.

They won't be seeing any savings for a while. Whatever operational surplus they get from saving so many bus runs in the east will be used up by the vastly increased bus service needed during construction of Stage 2 (mostly in the West).

Operational savings might kick in 2023. But as I understand it, the goal beyond the LRT construction is to increase frequencies everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Truenorth00]

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.

Don't encourage this. None of those streets have ridership that would justify LRT on its own merits either.

People think being more dense than other parts of Ottawa justifies higher order transit. But Ottawa is just not that dense. And those avenues are all suburban by an absolute definition.

Sure, there are portions of those avenues that have some density. But as a corridor they are not very dense. Ergo, discussing wether they have room to fit an LRT is a moot point.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They won't be seeing any savings for a while. Whatever operational surplus they get from saving so many bus runs in the east will be used up by the vastly increased bus service needed during construction of Stage 2 (mostly in the West).

Operational savings might kick in 2023. But as I understand it, the goal beyond the LRT construction is to increase frequencies everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Where has this ever been published? That has been widely talked about on this board but I have never seen this as a city goal. Since transit was rationalized, the policy has been to use bigger buses instead of increasing frequency. In my neighbourhood, where frequency was cut in half, they sporadically send out articulated buses during off-peak hours on our narrow residential streets to address overcrowding on certain runs.

[Truenorth00]

I think a huge part of the problem here is how people perceive LRT. Some think of it as a premium tram service. And in many applications (like the ones being built in Toronto) they are. Hence the insistence that it should have been built on a major avenue.

But Ottawa's LRT, despite the name is a light metro. Stop spacing (800m - 2km) is closer to subway/metro standards than anything LRT. It's a fully segregated and grade separated, fully exclusive ROW, something more typical of a subway. It's not really LRT. The only thing "light" about it, are the the not so light rail vehicles behind used.

When you start thinking of it as a metro, I think it helps to frame the discussion better. Does it make sense to build a subway on Montreal? That's the real discussion here. And this is about as sensible as insisting on a subway under Bank Street.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Where has this ever been published? That has been widely talked about on this board but I have never seen this as a city goal. Since transit was rationalized, the policy has been to use bigger buses instead of increasing frequency. In my neighbourhood, where frequency was cut in half, they sporadically send out articulated buses during off-peak hours on our narrow residential streets to address overcrowding on certain runs.

At every consultation where I've inquired about this, planners and politicians have said higher frequency is the long term goal. But that right now, so much of their bus resources are tied up supporting construction.

Guess we won't really know what they are going down till about 2023.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Don't encourage this. None of those streets have ridership that would justify LRT on its own merits either.

People think being more dense than other parts of Ottawa justifies higher order transit. But Ottawa is just not that dense. And those avenues are all suburban by an absolute definition.

Sure, there are portions of those avenues that have some density. But as a corridor they are not very dense. Ergo, discussing wether they have room to fit an LRT is a moot point.

By this same argument, we should not build rail transit in Gatineau at all, because it is less dense than most of Ottawa. Likewise, we should forego building the Confederation Line any further than the first Park n Ride lot to the east, west and south. We should not invest in the Baseline BRT because current ridership does not support the investment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

By this same argument, we should not build rail transit in Gatineau at all, because it is less dense than most of Ottawa.

We keep talking in circles.

Once again. Nobody has suggested the Confederation Line was built because of corridor density. It was built to serve the massive amount of existing ridership that is there. Again. Ottawa needed to convert the existing Transitway because it was literally bursting at the seams.

Has nobody here attended the presentations when they first proposed the LRT? At one point they said current trends would mean putting a bus through the core Transitway (Albert/Slater) every 20 seconds, by 2030. That is why they needed LRT and a tunnel. There was just no way to accomplish the throughput needed without them.

If Gatineau has the ridership on the Rapibus corridor to convert to rail, then they should be building rail there. If they are doing it simply to keep up with the joneses in Ottawa, then, yes, it's a waste and should be called out as such.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Likewise, we should forego building the Confederation Line any further than the first Park n Ride lot to the east, west and south.

No arguments there. I've repeatedly argued that the LRT should not have left the greenbelt, or it would enable sprawl. Extending to Trim is particularly ridiculous.

That said, again, density is not at the heart of where transit is getting built. It's ridership. Orleans has a particularly high amount of transit ridership. So the capacity of an LRT is both needed and justified. The only debate for me is whether the terminus should have been at Blair or Place D'Orleans.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We should not invest in the Baseline BRT because current ridership does not support the investment.

I'd love to see studies on this, and what level of ridership they think they'll get there than justifies a $140 million BRT. That money could do a ton if it's spent on signal priority and queue jumps everywhere.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 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.

Strawman. Who said that there will be an "enormous spike in ridership"?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. I don't get why anybody thinks streetcars are all that great when they aren't on an exclusive ROW. No different than a bus. The only difference is perhaps the perceived level of comfort being in a larger vehicle than a bus.

- The ride is smoother.
- The firm committment to a fixed route incentivizes development that has transit in mind. Bus routes don't do that.
- They can't easily be re-routed to make way for stupid street parties and other casual closures, thereby making the system predictable for users.
- Drivers are afraid of them in a way that they aren't when it comes to buses.

I'd take a streetcar over a bus on a major urban main street any day.

[lrt's friend]

So, Phase 2 should complete LRT for Ottawa, discounting any discussion for Gatineau, which will not happen anyways because interprovincial politics and municipal rivalry will prevent it.

Meanwhile, every other major city in Canada is planning for rail expansion.

Future money should be invested in bicycle tracks and the like.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Where has this ever been published? That has been widely talked about on this board but I have never seen this as a city goal. Since transit was rationalized, the policy has been to use bigger buses instead of increasing frequency. In my neighbourhood, where frequency was cut in half, they sporadically send out articulated buses during off-peak hours on our narrow residential streets to address overcrowding on certain runs.

All the city's plans for post-LRT operations seem to be more or less status-quo service levels within the core, just disengenuously rebranded as "Frequent", or "ConneXXXion", even though they will be no more frequent, and only marginally more connecty, than the current situation... and in some cases, less connecty, through route-splitting and the further breakup of the Rideau Street all-routes hub that used to exist before 2008.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

- The ride is smoother.
- The firm committment to a fixed route incentivizes development that has transit in mind. Bus routes don't do that.
- They can't easily be re-routed to make way for stupid street parties and other casual closures, thereby making the system predictable for users.
- Drivers are afraid of them in a way that they aren't when it comes to buses.

I'd take a streetcar over a bus on a major urban main street any day.

The biggest reason is that there is an incentive to do it right by improving the right of way and prioritize the corridor. With buses, there has been little incentive to make improvements and that is quite evident. Yes, we can make similar improvements with buses, but where are the studies? There are none. Bus transit improvements along the busiest corridors is the lowest of the low priorities.

Another reason is to improve the general environment along Rideau Street to make it more attractive to pedestrians without noisy and smelly buses, which will again promote business along the corridor. As it stands, Rideau Street has been pretty shabby probably ever since they pulled up the original streetcars. We want to build all these fancy condos but the main thoroughfare looks putrid.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What proof? Show some ridership numbers.



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.

So im guessing you never taken the route 12 or even travel along that corridor to see things for yourself to know how badly transit needs to be improved. Every time i go that way the bus is always full so the ridership is there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All the city's plans for post-LRT operations seem to be more or less status-quo service levels within the core, just disengenuously rebranded as "Frequent", or "ConneXXXion", even though they will be no more frequent, and only marginally more connecty, than the current situation... and in some cases, less connecty, through route-splitting and the further breakup of the Rideau Street all-routes hub that used to exist before 2008.

You make me laugh because the comment about frequency applies city wide. But also, when I point out to the city that their 'frequent' routes are not actually frequent even by their standards, I get no response.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You make me laugh because the comment about frequency applies city wide. But also, when I point out to the city that their 'frequent' routes are not actually frequent even by their standards, I get no response.

I think they used the same marketing consultant who rebranded Canada Post's regular parcel service as "Expedited", or maybe the one who got all the condo developers to name their buildings after bits of Manhattan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

- The ride is smoother.

I take it you've never been on a streetcar where the driver had to slam on the brake?

In any event, how valuable is smooth if I have to wait in the cold for 10 - 15 mins for a tram? Frequency beats smooth rides for me any day.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

- Drivers are afraid of them in a way that they aren't when it comes to buses.

Again. You've never been to Toronto? I can't count the times I've nearly gotten run over by exiting a streetcar. This "fear", if it exists, is temporary at best.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

- They can't easily be re-routed to make way for stupid street parties and other casual closures, thereby making the system predictable for users.

Not true. Again in Toronto. Often see service substitution with buses during special events.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The firm committment to a fixed route incentivizes development that has transit in mind. Bus routes don't do that.

Why would anybody care about this unless they were a developer?

Development is not static. I can move to an area with better transit (and I have).

[kmcamp]

It really isn't an either/or. Street level LRT is very complementary to a metro system. That's why many European cities have both or a hybrid. Nor does the city need Hong Kong level densities to justify it. The ridership is already there on the Montreal and Bank St corridor, more so than many LRT lines in the US. We are not "done" after stage 2, there's still lots to be improved.

Nor does street level LRT have to work like the King St streetcar (before the pilot). Toronto isn't the example to emulate.