Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That, I agree with.



I think Calgary and Edmonton's heavy reliance on the Oil sector might have played a role in slightly lower modal share.



I think you misunderstood. I think we should have built LRT with the downtown portion at grade, hence the "Calgary model". That way, we would only have to build the tunnel today instead of shutting down the entire backbone of our transit system for conversion.

The rest of the system could have used the same Tranistway ROW we are converting now.

There was no way Ottawa was going to build anything at-grade since it would have caused huge traffic problems which was one of the reasons they stopped using streetcars to begin with. I know you will disagree but Ottawa has taken the right steps concerning going from BRT to LRT.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The person likely to become Premier next month has made it very clear that Phase 2 is happening, so...

Yes, politician's always do everything they say they will during election campaigns. Electoral reform anyone?

Even if he wants to, when somebody gets a look at the actual books, there is going to be a huge financial reckoning in this province. Maybe phase 2 will survive (or more likely parts of it) but there will be a mountain of unfunded projects to sort through.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Proof is in the pudding. Ottawa has transit modal share that's close to TMV. Calgary and Edmonton aren't close.

Counting km as some kind of dick measuring contest is moronic. The purpose of building transit is to actually move residents. And for a city of its size, Ottawa punches above its weight. And well beyond any other comparable city on this continent. Forget looking at Calgary or Edmonton. Let's look at similar sized cities in Europe and aim to get transit ridership to those levels.

Not sure how helpful these numbers are but thought I would provide them anyway:

Public transit commuting

1. Vancouver

1996: 14.3%
2016: 20.4%
20-year growth: +6.1%

2. Montreal

1996: 19.8%
2016: 22.3%
20-year growth: +2.5%

3.= Toronto

1996: 22.0%
2016: 24.3%
20-year growth: +2.3%

3.= Edmonton

1996: 9.0%
2016: 11.3%
20-year growth: +2.3%

6. Calgary

1996: 12.6%
2016: 14.4%
20-year growth: +1.8

7. Ottawa-Gatineau

1996: 18.3%
2016: 17.0%
20-year growth: -1.3%

(From Statistics Canada)

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Not sure how helpful these numbers are but thought I would provide them anyway:

No kidding, Ottawa has experienced massive interruptions affecting the downtown core for the past 5 years.

[eltodesukane]

And Rideau Street is still an unwelcoming mess, and has been for at least 5 years!
(Should be better next year)

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa's numbers are not surprising at all. It is part of the LRT construction disruption that I predicted all along. But not only that. It has been the system optimization and prevailing thinking that has followed, that no strategic system improvements would be made. Instead, just barely meeting the demand. Loss of ridership is the result of system cuts including silent ones that OC Transpo implemented on many routes when double deckers were introduced. There has been a steady stream of frequency cuts on countless routes over decades that is now negatively impacting ridership.

The frequent service standard of 15 minutes is not frequent enough. Frequency is so important for anybody who has to transfer. Having to wait 15 minutes on a daily basis, is not going to sell transit and does not allow riders to move around the city easily. I don't think that this kind of formula is applied in the cities that are seeing ridership growth.

I am not confident that the opening of the Confederation Line will reverse this entirely if the prevailing attitude at OC Transpo and the city is that improving frequency beyond 15 minutes is a last resort. 90% of OC Transpo riders will still need to use a bus for part or all of their trip.

[lrt's friend]

And Rideau Street is still an unwelcoming mess, and has been for at least 5 years!
(Should be better next year)

Disappointing considering this was supposed to be all cleaned up by June 30, 2017.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

And Rideau Street is still an unwelcoming mess, and has been for at least 5 years!
(Should be better next year)

Let me put this in as a souvenir just in case they take it down :



My guess is that Rideau street will get worse next year when they close it and rip up the surface completely for the final dressing.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Not sure how helpful these numbers are but thought I would provide them anyway:


(From Statistics Canada)

The transitway was near or at capacity by the time those numbers were used, so its a very poor comparison.

Use figures from 1983 until now and then do a comparison and i say 1983 because thats when the transitway first opened.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The person likely to become Premier next month has made it very clear that Phase 2 is happening, so...

All of it?

When ever their is a change of government, we always hear about how the finances are worse than they expected.

I recently read an article in a Toronto newspaper that said that the promised government efficiencies and savings can most easily be achieved by cancelling transit projects. The vast majority of other government expenses are on core programs such as health care and education. Cutting those programs will be more politically unpopular. Transit is the most vulnerable.

Any project without a shovel in the ground is vulnerable. Don't put it past a politician to reverse himself based on the issue of finances.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The transitway was near or at capacity by the time those numbers were used, so its a very poor comparison.

Use figures from 1983 until now and then do a comparison and i say 1983 because thats when the transitway first opened.

I don't think you want to make that comparison. It might be even worse. Transit has not kept up with the suburbanization of Ottawa. The cost of servicing more and more far-flung suburbs has made the whole system unsustainable, but never have we seriously considered real zone fares to keep the fares in line with the cost of service. It costs exactly the same to travel from Stittsville to downtown as from Lansdowne to downtown and we eliminated the express fares, the closest thing to zone fares that we ever had as it applied only to routes running beyond the Greenbelt.

The last golden era was when Ottawa implemented express service across the city in the 70s. Despite its flaws, ridership did grow by leaps and bounds during that period.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think you want to make that comparison. It might be even worse. Transit has not kept up with the suburbanization of Ottawa.

Or sub-urbanization has not been done in a manner conducive to transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Or sub-urbanization has not been done in a manner conducive to transit.

Absolutely! Poor design tailored almost exclusively to cars.

I remember when attending a meeting when Findlay Creek was first being planned several years ago and the planners said that their was no need for buses more than every 30 minutes. That says it all.

And all the recent planning for south Bank Street offered little more than lip service for transit. Again, more consideration is given to cycle tracks over moving people by transit. The Trillium Line and Transitway were close enough (not everywhere). For the average person, it was obvious that transit was the lowest consideration. That is disturbing for a retail street that they hope to intensify.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

There was no way Ottawa was going to build anything at-grade since it would have caused huge traffic problems which was one of the reasons they stopped using streetcars to begin with. I know you will disagree but Ottawa has taken the right steps concerning going from BRT to LRT.

I just don't see how trains on Albert and Slater, passing every 2 minutes, would have been worse than the line-ups of a hundred bus routes we have now. The 2006 plan, adding trains to the existing central Trnsitway mess would have been a disaster. Trains alone for the first 20 years would not ahve been an issue.

If LRT was built in the first place, the debate in the 2000s would have been whether or not we need to build a $600 million tunnel downtown and not where to go with LRT, let's shut down the entire backbone of the system to convert it to LRT and use every single cent we have on upgrading the corridor we already have so that we can neglect the central area for another 50+ years.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

All of it?

When ever their is a change of government, we always hear about how the finances are worse than they expected.

I recently read an article in a Toronto newspaper that said that the promised government efficiencies and savings can most easily be achieved by cancelling transit projects. The vast majority of other government expenses are on core programs such as health care and education. Cutting those programs will be more politically unpopular. Transit is the most vulnerable.

Any project without a shovel in the ground is vulnerable. Don't put it past a politician to reverse himself based on the issue of finances.

True, but in the game of politics cancelling projects you made promises over in the election is bad optics. Stage 3 is at risk, as is a number of other LRT lines in the GTA (Finch, Jane, Hurontario, etc). But the very likely to proceed projects under Ford are our stage 2, the Scarborough white elephant, and Toronto's downtown relief line.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

True, but in the game of politics cancelling projects you made promises over in the election is bad optics. Stage 3 is at risk, as is a number of other LRT lines in the GTA (Finch, Jane, Hurontario, etc). But the very likely to proceed projects under Ford are our stage 2, the Scarborough white elephant, and Toronto's downtown relief line.

Actually stage 3 might still be a go. Under a Ford government, overbuilt transit projects to vote rich suburbs are very likely, while efficienies (i.e. cuts) will be done to pinko commie inner Urban areas

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

The ETS ridership is actually quite good on the North American scale, just a touch less than LRT darling Portland. Calgary is in a league of it's own, the third highest in North America after Guadalajara (which really is a light metro) and the TTC streetcars. And those two cities are many times Calgary's size. If Ottawa has the ridership claimed, we'll also be punching way above our weight

You are looking at total ridership. Not modal share. A few million rides annually in a city of a million is not really good performance....

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I just don't see how trains on Albert and Slater, passing every 2 minutes, would have been worse than the line-ups of a hundred bus routes we have now. The 2006 plan, adding trains to the existing central Trnsitway mess would have been a disaster. Trains alone for the first 20 years would not ahve been an issue.

If LRT was built in the first place, the debate in the 2000s would have been whether or not we need to build a $600 million tunnel downtown and not where to go with LRT, let's shut down the entire backbone of the system to convert it to LRT and use every single cent we have on upgrading the corridor we already have so that we can neglect the central area for another 50+ years.

You have ignored that Ottawa did have a downtown streetcar system which they eventually ripped up. Hell they couldn't get funding for a bus tunnel downtown when the transitway was being built. What you are proposing would have been a costly disaster waiting to happen which would have led to far less ridership than we have now, case in point Edmonton.

[J.OT13]

Ottawa removed its 6 streetcar lines that crissed-crossed the central area. I'm fully aware. But so did Calgary in 1950.

I think that we should have gone with the Calgary model back in the 70s and 80s with LRT to serve the suburbs and street-level in Albert and Slater. It wasn't a disaster in Calgary (up until a decade ago when the downtown portion was over-capacity, just like our central BRT), so why would it have been a disaster here?

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You are looking at total ridership. Not modal share. A few million rides annually in a city of a million is not really good performance....

No, I was talking modal share. In the North American context it's decent. It's just because the modal share in American cities, even ones with "good" transit like Boston, Seattle and Portland is so low. I'm doing the glass half full while you're doing the half empty view.