Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[J.OT13]

Found a video from the Rideau Transit Partners, one of the unsuccessful consortiums led vying to building the Confederation Line Stage 1. It shows stations from Tunney's to Rideau. Wider platforms, nicer and more realistic materials (as opposed to RTG renderings that show a high use of stone that we now see will not be included), Siemens shorter trains (?) Looks like they would have stacked the east and west bound platforms in the CBD (similar to Vancouver Skytrain's Granville and Burrard Stations).

• Video Link

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Every few months, this proposal comes back and the person making the proposal quotes London and other European cities.

For one, traffic congestion in Ottawa isn't really that bad. Two, Ottawa is much smaller than most cities who have this type of system. Three, our transit system is minuscule compared to these European cities. Even with stage 2, it will basically just serve park-and-rides. Gatineau is in an even worse situation.

The only Canadian city he could justify charging people to drive into downtown is Montreal in 10-15 years once the REM and Pink Line open.

Ottawa traffic is bad enough that something has to be done about it. All this worry about OC Transpo buses using Wellington is hypocritical when the street is bombarded with cars every rush hour and it is backed up all the way into downtown Hull up to Autoroute 5.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think that you overestimate the distance between Bay and Queen. It's 120 meters. That is, in my opinion, a very manageable distance, especially when you consider that Bay Street would allow transit users to make significant time savings compared to Lyon. Or, put another way, would you spend an extra 10 minutes per day in the bus just to save yourself a 1 minute walk?





According to the Origin-Destination matrices , about 7% of Gatineau transit commuters are headed east of downtown Ottawa. That's not nothing, but it's not a whole lot either, especially when you consider that a portion of these commuters will be taking the bus to the east along Rideau instead of taking the Confederation Line.

But in any case, even for the 7% of eastbound commuters from Gatineau, a straight Bay St alignment with reserved lanes would result in time savings. And for the other 30% headed for downtown, the time savings would be even greater by avoiding the zig-zags, loops, and the short-turns at Bank.





I'm generally not a fan of this type of argument. Unless it's a cold or a rash, the wait-and-see attitude usually just results in people getting used to a bad situation as opposed to it actually getting better. Even after people give up on grumbling about it, transit commutes will still be longer and less usable.

It's kind of like two trains headed for a heads-on collision on a single track: There is compelling evidence to suggest we should be concerned with the outcome and it would best for all involved to deal with the situation before it happens as opposed to adoption a wait-and-see approach.

Again your idea makes no sense when the city wants easier connections at the confederation line which is why the city's idea makes the most sense.

Making bay street a 2 way street wont work since its too narrow and the city of Ottawa plans on putting a 2 way cycling lane on it. The current plan makes the most sense since Lyon north of Queen is already a 2 way street. Once they finish up the work that they are doing, it will look a whole lot better.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Ottawa traffic is bad enough that something has to be done about it. All this worry about OC Transpo buses using Wellington is hypocritical when the street is bombarded with cars every rush hour and it is backed up all the way into downtown Hull up to Autoroute 5.

That has more to do with the fact that almost all interprovincial traffic is routed through downtown.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That has more to do with the fact that almost all interprovincial traffic is routed through downtown.

I agree and its a mess that needs to be cleaned up

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I agree and its a mess that needs to be cleaned up

it is a mess that we have made impossible to fix. Every bridge crossing has been ruled out. Excellent planning

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

it is a mess that we have made impossible to fix. Every bridge crossing has been ruled out. Excellent planning

I have always felt that one of the big problems with the bridges across the Ottawa River in the NCR is that every one has a traffic light near at least one end of it, most of them at both ends. Having cars stopped on the bridge waiting for a green light significantly reduces their capacity.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Every few months, this proposal comes back and the person making the proposal quotes London and other European cities.

For one, traffic congestion in Ottawa isn't really that bad. Two, Ottawa is much smaller than most cities who have this type of system. Three, our transit system is minuscule compared to these European cities. Even with stage 2, it will basically just serve park-and-rides. Gatineau is in an even worse situation.

The only Canadian city he could justify charging people to drive into downtown is Montreal in 10-15 years once the REM and Pink Line open.

Agreed London is not comparable but for something more similar look at Gothenburg's congestion charge. Much smaller city, less developed transit and high level of vehicle ownership.

[acottawa]

Sweden has a political culture where bureaucrats can just ignore public opinion (57% of residents opposed the congestion charge in a referendum). I don't think we have that political culture here.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

it is a mess that we have made impossible to fix. Every bridge crossing has been ruled out. Excellent planning

Perhaps future planning needs to focus on no more crossings?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agreed London is not comparable but for something more similar look at Gothenburg's congestion charge. Much smaller city, less developed transit and high level of vehicle ownership.

One interesting thing I read in Wikipedia about the London congestion charge is, "TfL concludes that while levels of congestion in central London are close to pre-charging levels, the effectiveness of the congestion charge in reducing traffic volumes means that conditions would be worse without the Congestion Charging scheme."

This to me indicates that at congestion charge should be used to prevent future congestion, not reduce existing congestion.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sweden has a political culture where bureaucrats can just ignore public opinion (57% of residents opposed the congestion charge in a referendum). I don't think we have that political culture here.

We absolutely do in municipal politics, but the suburban split would kill such an idea in Ottawa.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We absolutely do in municipal politics, but the suburban split would kill such an idea in Ottawa.

When was the last time a municipal government outright ignored the result of a plebiscite?

It isn't just suburban residents. Lots of urban residents drive (or take taxis, ubers, etc).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

There needs to be a balance. If Rideau is jammed at rush hour with dozens of buses this is not good for transit users or pedestrians alike. I also agree that no buses on Rideau runs the risk of making it a bit of a ghost-town. The right amount of hybrid or fully-electric vehicles will keep the area safe/vibrant but won't hinder their purpose (people moving). No matter what, moving thousands of current transit users into the LRT tunnel will allow for some creative solutions and options, something we don't have any of currently.

Rideau hasn't hitherto been "jammed" with transit buses, and with the removal of STO service, it'll be even less jammed, so that's that hypothetical problem dealt with.

And yes, there's gonna be lots of people moving to and through that LRT tunnel, but - this bears almost infinite repeating - the LRT is not going to displace more than a teeny fraction of the passenger load who currently use the local, non-transitway buses, to move within and between neighbourhoods in the inner urban area.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, OC Transpo uses those stops as well - but only as far as Bank. And only a few routes: the 1, the 7 and maybe a couple of others.

OC Transpo uses the stops at O'Connor and Metcalfe much more than STO does: STO service is off-only by the time it gets to Wellington; OC Transpo is still boarding passengers on Wellington who are headed to or beyond the Rideau Centre.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The general impression given is that bus riders downtown will be considered nuisances to be barely tolerated once all the suburbanites are switched to the Confederation Line.

This is it, exactly.

Buses and their passengers are treated as second-class transit, while at the same time, in the absence of any LRT all the way to Gatineau, let alone serving the inner city of Ottawa outside the office district and Rideau Centre, we are telling hundreds of thousands of people to shut up and enjoy your shitty bus service.

And we will be telling them that for many decades.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

While the city's map looks like spaghetti, the new routes should be easier for the drivers to handle since making a left turn on to Bank is tough since they have less room to deal with and sometimes idiot car drivers stop past the white line cutting into the space for the driver to turn and i have seen this on other streets as well.

If only the City of Ottawa stopped treating this driver behaviour as an intractable and inevitable problem, and started, you know, enforcing the damn rules.

I really wish the city would consider either banning car drivers from the downtown core or even charge them a tax for every km driven and force them to use transit.

At very least, start taxing workplace parking spots that are used by single-occupant private autos, and if the city doesn't have that power, get it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Sweden has a political culture where bureaucrats can just ignore public opinion (57% of residents opposed the congestion charge in a referendum). I don't think we have that political culture here.

I think the popularity would depend on the implementation. The support for it might be surprisingly high if it was only in the central business district and only during peak periods (when transit frequency and congestion are both high).

The problem of course is that the city doesn't own all of the roads in the central business district, so you would need either co-operation from the other levels of government or have to exempt those roadways (increasing the number of entrance points to be monitored).

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

At very least, start taxing workplace parking spots that are used by single-occupant private autos, and if the city doesn't have that power, get it.

How would you enforce a parking tax on only single-occupant vehicles? You can't determine how many passengers were in an empty, parked car. Even basing the tax on the number of people in the car when parking it is problematic, as often the passengers are dropped off close to their destination and only the driver parks the car (especially if the driver and passenger(s) have different destinations).

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We absolutely do in municipal politics, but the suburban split would kill such an idea in Ottawa.

Congestion charge study had been done in Ottawa: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227615

Downtown parking tax/levy is the most practical solution and can be sold to the public if there is political will.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Found a video from the Rideau Transit Partners, one of the unsuccessful consortiums led vying to building the Confederation Line Stage 1. It shows stations from Tunney's to Rideau. Wider platforms, nicer and more realistic materials (as opposed to RTG renderings that show a high use of stone that we now see will not be included), Siemens shorter trains (?) Looks like they would have stacked the east and west bound platforms in the CBD (similar to Vancouver Skytrain's Granville and Burrard Stations).

Thanks for sharing. Who knows if those wider platforms would have actually been built. They might have been made smaller as a cost cutting measure. As for the "nicer" materials, that is all a matter of personal opinion.