Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

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.

True. For some reason I was thinking only of westbound traffic.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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.

It would be up to the employer to obtain proof that the vehicle is used as a commuting machine for more people than just the driver. Provide that proof - poof! tax go by-by.

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).

My tax is on parking spots, not on vehicles.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It would be up to the employer to obtain proof that the vehicle is used as a commuting machine for more people than just the driver. Provide that proof - poof! tax go by-by.

That would only work for employer provided parking. How would it work for public or private parking? Also, isn't most of the employer provided parking owned by the federal government? I am not sure if they would go along with your plan.

My tax is on parking spots, not on vehicles.

But your tax is dependant on how many people the vehicle parked on it transported.

[lrt's friend]

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.

I was in Gothenburg last May. They have a major intermodal station right downtown at the central square. This station serves all the regional bus lines, intercity and local trains and the city's tram network is focused right outside the station. There is no comparison between Ottawa and Gothenburg other than perhaps size. You can tell the difference, because the downtown area is crowded with pedestrians.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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).

Jurisdiction is certainly an issue, but how do you define central business district? If it is just the Wellington-Bronson-Laurier-Elgin box then you just push people onto adjacent streets and move congestion from streets designed for congestion to those that aren't. If you start pushing the line further out (say Ottawa River-Rideau-River-Trillium line) then you start catching through traffic that is only going downtown because there are no bypass options (most of the inter-provincial traffic, as well as crosstown traffic on the Queensway) which would create rage among the voting public.

A lot of the problem is that Ottawa's entire road network (interprovincial bridges, Queensway, parkways) is designed to push people into the downtown core and offers few alternatives. As lrtfriend said earlier, plans to create bypasses and ring roads have all been cancelled and various stages over Ottawa's history.

[J.OT13]

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.

Not sure you understand the definition of "hypocritical". Those who support moving buses (and not necessarily all buses, but the STO at a bare minimum) to Albert and Slater have solid arguments and has nothing to do with favouring cars over transit;

1. Buses are taller and longer than passenger vehicles, and often lined up, creating a wall blocking the Parliament sight-lines;
2. Buses tend to be noisier and more polluting (with exceptions) than passenger cars, making the corridor less enjoyable;
3. A vast majority of bus passengers will be dropped off and picked up closer to work with buses traveling in the center of the CBD (Albert and Slater) as opposed to the north end (Wellington);
4. By moving the buses to less congested Albert and Slater, the bus system will be more reliable than bumper to bumper Wellington (the only street in my experience with heavy congestion at rush hour, with Laurier coming in second);
5. By removing buses from Wellington, we can consider narrowing the street and adding bike lanes.

And again, our transit system doesn't cover nearly enough of the region to justify congestion charges. You need an alternative, and with the O-Train as planned helps, but isn't nearly enough.

YOWetal brought up Gothenburg, but it too has better transit options such as commuter rail and an expansive tramway system.

What we can do to reduce our dependence on cars is cut off investments in new and widened roads and instead invest in maintaining the current road system and building new transit lines.

Until we have something like this, or this, we cannot consider a congestion charge.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Until we have something like this, or this, we cannot consider a congestion charge.

Congestion charge in Nottingham UK (pop 321,500): http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/transpo...king-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy/
£402 per parking spot per year.
Map of rapid transit network in Nottingham:

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Congestion charge in Nottingham UK (pop 321,500): http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/transpo...king-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy/
£402 per parking spot per year.

Ah, but Nottingham has a castle. Ottawa doesn't. Therefore the comparison is completely invalid on every level.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Ah, but Nottingham has a castle. Ottawa doesn't. Therefore the comparison is completely invalid on every level.

We have the Château Laurier.

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Congestion charge in Nottingham UK (pop 321,500): http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/transpo...king-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy/
£402 per parking spot per year.
Map of rapid transit network in Nottingham:

Yes, there are a few exceptions, but we can't say "one city with a crappy transit system has a congestion charge, why not us?"

Nottingham however, is not one of those exceptions. They have a 32 km tram service and expanding.

https://www.thetram.net/maps-and-stops.aspx

Ottawa should be compared with other North American cities, and better yet, Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Québec, Winnipeg... All of which don't have congestion charges and 5 of which currently have a better transit system.

[1overcosc]

A congestion charge on roads is not really workable in Ottawa, but a peak period parking tax in the CBD is a better alternative.

It could be a tax on:
-all monthly and weekly parking permits
-hourly permits between the hours of 6am-9am and 3pm-6pm

This would tax commuters but leave evening, midday, and weekend parking spaces for incoming suburban visitors unaffected.

Alternatively, the city could simply ban the creation of any new non-residential parking spaces in the CBD. This would ensure that incoming traffic levels couldn't grow, and would shrink them over time as parking spaces are redeveloped.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That would only work for employer provided parking.

Yup, which is exactly what I proposed. Workplace parking.

How would it work for public or private parking?

Dunno. Don't care. My idea is with regards to workplace parking.

Also, isn't most of the employer provided parking owned by the federal government? I am not sure if they would go along with your plan.

The current government would probably be quite amenable. Past governments supported Ottawa transportation goals through policies such as staggered workday start/end times to smooth out the a.m. and p.m. transit and traffic peaks.

But your tax is dependant on how many people the vehicle parked on it transported.

The tax - or abatement on the tax - would be dependent on the person to whom a workplace parking spot is issued being able to demonstrate that they are not generally the only occupant of their vehicle, yes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

[*]Buses are taller and longer than passenger vehicles, and often lined up, creating a wall blocking the Parliament sight-lines;

Simple solution: Cross the street.

Again, why should private autos be the only vehicles whose occupants are permitted to see that view? This is what the buses-off-Wellington fetish will accomplish, and not much more. And with the addition of even more left turns on the local routes in the core, let alone the breaking up of a central Rideau hub and bus-to-bus connections, the buses-off-Wellington fetish is going to result in worse transit service within the core neighbourhoods.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A congestion charge on roads is not really workable in Ottawa, but a peak period parking tax in the CBD is a better alternative.

It could be a tax on:
-all monthly and weekly parking permits
-hourly permits between the hours of 6am-9am and 3pm-6pm

This would tax commuters but leave evening, midday, and weekend parking spaces for incoming suburban visitors unaffected.

Alternatively, the city could simply ban the creation of any new non-residential parking spaces in the CBD. This would ensure that incoming traffic levels couldn't grow, and would shrink them over time as parking spaces are redeveloped.

Parking is already in the $200 range, not sure a tax would dissuade anyone.

I wonder how much downtown traffic comes from downtown parkers. It seems like an awful lot of through traffic.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Simple solution: Cross the street.

Again, why should private autos be the only vehicles whose occupants are permitted to see that view? This is what the buses-off-Wellington fetish will accomplish, and not much more. And with the addition of even more left turns on the local routes in the core, let alone the breaking up of a central Rideau hub and bus-to-bus connections, the buses-off-Wellington fetish is going to result in worse transit service within the core neighbourhoods.

You don't seem to have a good reason to keep the buses on Wellington street other than standing on your little hill and yelling about how you perceive transit users to be treated poorly. A list of reasons is presented why other streets are more convenient to transit users, but you choose to actively ignore those reasons so you can rant on and on (and on) about how you perceive transit users to be treated unfairly. Moving transit into the downtown means it is closer to the people who want to use it, and reduces the number of detours required for special events, two things you seem to be very passionate about. This doesn't matter though, because it doesn't fit your narrative about how you believe urban transit is declining.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

You don't seem to have a good reason to keep the buses on Wellington street

- simpler, more intuitive routing for local buses in the core;
- fewer left turns for buses to get stranded in (and no left turns for north/eastbound buses at all);
- one less reason^H^H^H excuse for OC Transpo to destroy the Rideau Street bus hub, bus:bus transfer point, and local bus:LRT transfer point;
- healthier mix of transportation on Wellington, or, if you prefer "Confederation Boulevard";
- a rebuke of the anti-transit, anti-bus, prettyism fetish that the NCC has infested the city with.

Those are my reasons. I've laid them out many times. I think they're pretty good reasons, but YMMV.

Moving transit into the downtown means it is closer to the people who want to use it,

It's closer for some, further for others, and a wash for others still. I can see the point about moving STO buses to Queen or Albertslater, but OC Transpo? There is no point in moving them if you value a local bus network within the core, and if you realize, as OC Transpo does not, that the LRT is not a substitute in any way, shape, or form, for that service.

and reduces the number of detours required for special events,

If we want to reduce the number of such detours, it's pretty simple: stop handing out detours to every stupid "street party" that asks for one. They, not ceremonial occasions on Wellington, are the primary cause of non-emergency detours on local routes in the core.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'll post this again; according to the City's plans, they will be keeping a few routes on Wellington (west bound only it seems);

Only for the purpose of terminating or turnarounds. There will be no real service and no throughway of buses on Wellington per that plan. Wellington is for cars. And bikes, naturally. But not dirty buses.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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.

I guess I was thinking more about the underground stations with lots of wood, more architecturally complete compared to the beige panels we see in the interior of all stations. RTG's above ground station architecture (from the outside at least) I think is better than RTP.

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.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A congestion charge on roads is not really workable in Ottawa, but a peak period parking tax in the CBD is a better alternative.

It could be a tax on:
-all monthly and weekly parking permits
-hourly permits between the hours of 6am-9am and 3pm-6pm

This would tax commuters but leave evening, midday, and weekend parking spaces for incoming suburban visitors unaffected.

Parking taxes during weekdays is something I can agree with. And if you can prove that the the vehicle is used for carpooling, the the tax would be reduced. That said, the tax would have to be used first and foremost to reduce transit passes (currently cheaper to park downtown for two people then buy bus passes, and that's speaks to bus passes being to expensive, the most expensive in Canada, not parking being too cheap) and any extra would go in a pot used for transit improvements.

[J.OT13]

Turns out Montreal also had issues with Metro construction. Here's station de l'Église.



The cave-in in the station construction site on 20 March 1974 began when dynamiting caused the weak rock above the station to crack, and the metal braces supporting it to begin to vibrate. (The concrete vault had not yet been poured.) The worksite was evacuated. For a time it was thought that work would be able to continue, but abruptly the roadway (which had been open to traffic during the construction) began to shudder, bulge, and subside. Finally, a section of the road collapsed and fell into the pit. The whole area was evacuated, due both to the resulting gas leak from destroyed conduits, and to fears for the safety of nearby buildings. In the end, the entire pit was filled in with crushed rock in order to stop the escaping gas and any further landslides.

The architectural plans were modified to halve the station's width by using stacked platforms. Charlevoix station's plans were also modified in consequence. Other stations in the same rock formation, including Verdun, LaSalle, Place-d'Armes, and Champ-de-Mars, are built in trench.

The accident not only delayed the opening of the extension from 1976 to 1978, but it forced rue Wellington to be closed. Local merchants responded to the 40% drop in business by holding a sidewalk sale in the remaining portions of the street, including a tightrope walker who traversed the construction pit.

Other smaller cave-ins troubled the rest of the construction. In the rush to finish the station for the new deadline of 3 September 1978, the av. de l'Église exit was not completed in time; the station used only the rue Wellington exit until 1979.

http://www.metrodemontreal.com/green/deleglise/history.html

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I was in Gothenburg last May. They have a major intermodal station right downtown at the central square. This station serves all the regional bus lines, intercity and local trains and the city's tram network is focused right outside the station. There is no comparison between Ottawa and Gothenburg other than perhaps size. You can tell the difference, because the downtown area is crowded with pedestrians.

I was there 15 years ago and the downtown was a ghostown. I am not claiming the cause and effect here but it is possible. In the Swedish context it is known as a suburban and driving focused city.

If we use the Ottawa River, Rideau River, 417 and Preston as the boundaries there are actually relatively few entry points. I count 15. If you toll the exits from the 417 or less if you toll the 417 at Preston and between Vanier and Nicholas exits from the east.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was there 15 years ago and the downtown was a ghostown. I am not claiming the cause and effect here but it is possible. In the Swedish context it is known as a suburban and driving focused city.

I've never been to Gothenburg, but the two times I have been to Malmo (2002 and 2012) there was an enormous change. Over that decade there had been huge investment (burying the platforms and tracks near the central station, cleaning up the waterfront, significant streetscaping, building new public buildings). If Gothenburg has received similar investment I would tend to think that is a more likely cause of an improvement in the city centre then there being 12% fewer cars on weekdays during the day.