Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[MichaelC]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Edmonton: https://globalnews.ca/news/4179569/edmonton-survey-transportation-habits-driving-transit/

Ottawa: https://www.ottawainsights.ca/themes/environment-and-sustainability/transportation/

And roger1818 reposted the graphics from Human Transit.

I am at a loss to where you and others are getting the idea that Edmonton has good transit usage. Saying it's "good for North America" is a cop-out. Most of the US has 🞵🞵🞵🞵 transit usage. The worst Canadian cities (like Edmonton) are better than virtually all American cities except for the best (New York, SF, Boston). But that's not saying much. Comparing yourself to the D student isn't exactly a compliment.

Edmonton's rapid transit network is significantly smaller than all the cities listed. If you look at a statistic such as boardings per mile (on LRT) Edmonton jumps to 5th spot in North America behind Guadalajara (Mex), Mexico City, Boston, and Calgary and putting Edmonton ahead of Toronto (streetcar), San Fransisco (Muni), O-Train, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MichaelC

Edmonton's rapid transit network is significantly smaller than all the cities listed. If you look at a statistic such as boardings per mile (on LRT) Edmonton jumps to 5th spot in North America behind Guadalajara (Mex), Mexico City, Boston, and Calgary and putting Edmonton ahead of Toronto (streetcar), San Fransisco (Muni), O-Train, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

Other cities would look great on those metrics too if all they had were rapid transit in the densest parts of their cities.

That tells you nothing about how much transit is actually used on a day to day basis.

[OtrainUser]

Here is a list of all the Transitway systems around the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems

Biggest one is in Djakarta at 230km over 1500 buses and is also grade separated like Ottawa's

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I see this as a positive actually. They got those corridors for a song back then. And did nothing but put down some asphalt and a few overpasses. And all that infrastructure has rolled into the LRT. It's not like Ottawa's Transitway stations were grand in anyway. I don't see any indicators that Ottawa would have had as large an RT network if it had gone with LRT instead.

Most importantly, that suburban infrastructure is the very reason why transit modal share is so high in Ottawa compared to other similar jurisdictions. Ottawa was able to built a transit culture for its suburbs based on services like offering one-seat Express buses. And those services would not have been anywhere as attractive without the Transitway.

There is no need to build expensive, elaborate grade-separated systems to reserve corridors. This could be done with an LRT, an at-grade BRT, or a chain link fence and a sign "reserved for future transit corridor."

My understanding is that there was little ridership improvement following the transitway's opening (there was already an express bus system using bus lanes). Most of Ottawa's transit ridership is driven by its largest employer charging "market rates" for parking.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Right. And that's the 90s. If we're talking about the early 80s when the Transitway was built, there's even less of a case for any kind of tunnel through the core, when Ottawa was about the size of London, ON today.

The downtown bus tunnel was a core element of the original plan in the 80s and the transitway was not viable without it (hence the need to spend billions to replace 20-30 year old transit infrastructure).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Except for all the BRTs popping up all over the developing world. Or the BRTs being built in North America, from the short TTC run between York U and Downsview, to VIVA's Hwy 7, to London's upcoming SHIFT plans.

The only major difference is corridor segregation. Ottawa has it. Many other jurisdictions don't. And the only reason Ottawa managed that was because it built early when the land was available for cheap and the cost to segregate was minimal. Where it was expensive, Ottawa didn't end with segregated exclusive ROWs (like the downtown core). This looks to me like more evidence that Ottawa's strategy paid off. In effect, Ottawa reserved those suburban ROWs for future LRTs and ran BRT on them till they could build LRT.

None of those systems in any way resemble Ottawa's transitway except the vehicles are buses. Viva is prettied up bus lanes on an arterial road (I think that is what shift is as well). The TTC York BRT is a surface route, as is the Gatineau BRT.

You're right that grade separation is a key difference (since grade separating rail is way cheaper, every else that wanted grade separation opted for rail). Another key difference is the massively overbuilt infrastructure. Most of the stations are just massive, including little neighbourhood stations with few riders. They looked like they were speced for the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00;8180194The only major difference is corridor segregation. Ottawa has it. Many other jurisdictions don't. And the only reason Ottawa managed that was because [B

it built early when the land was available for cheap and the cost to segregate was minimal.[/B] Where it was expensive, Ottawa didn't end with segregated exclusive ROWs (like the downtown core). This looks to me like more evidence that Ottawa's strategy paid off. In effect, Ottawa reserved those suburban ROWs for future LRTs and ran BRT on them till they could build LRT.

Most of the Transitway was built on abandoned rail corridors, so the segregation occurred about a century earlier. It is true the city/NCC didn't let developers build over it in the 15 years between when the rail was torn up and the Transitway opened.

I believe Edmonton's LRT was also built on an abandoned rail line (though I could be wrong).

While using an abandoned rail lines is cheap and easy, it isn't always ideal as your population may not live close to the line. It can create TOD opportunities though.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Edmonton: https://globalnews.ca/news/4179569/edmonton-survey-transportation-habits-driving-transit/

The issue I have with that article is it is talking about growth of transit as a modal share percent. If you look at Ottawa's numbers, we have actually seen a decline in modal share in the past 10 years, though much of that is due disruption due to LRT construction.

You can't expect that to change without growing the system, and while there are construction projects underway (in both Edmonton and Ottawa), they aren't complete, so little has changed in that time period.

Originally Posted by MichaelC

Edmonton's rapid transit network is significantly smaller than all the cities listed. If you look at a statistic such as boardings per mile (on LRT) Edmonton jumps to 5th spot in North America behind Guadalajara (Mex), Mexico City, Boston, and Calgary and putting Edmonton ahead of Toronto (streetcar), San Fransisco (Muni), O-Train, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

As others have said, boardings per mile can be misleading. If a city has a short line through town and then has a large number of people transfer onto the line from a bus, the statistic will be inflated significantly. After Stage 1, I suspect the Confederation Line will have the highest boardings per mile in North America for exactly that reason.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Here is a list of all the Transitway systems around the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems

Biggest one is in Djakarta at 230km over 1500 buses and is also grade separated like Ottawa's

I love that the photo illustrating OCTranspo is of a 12 turning off Wellington onto Elgin.

[OtrainUser]

Here is some insight into this discussion

http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/news-and-insights/LRT-versus-BRT

Im sure the city of Ottawa weighed those facts back in 1979 when they approved the transitway. With that being said there was no way to justify building LRT back then when the population was only 500,000 people so that's why they went the BRT route instead which was the correct choice.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While using an abandoned rail lines is cheap and easy, it isn't always ideal as your population may not live close to the line. It can create TOD opportunities though.

The Transitway did, at best, a mediocre job of inducing TOD. At worst, through the zillion-bus "express" model that was in effect for most of its existence, the Transitway ended up subsidizing "transit-oriented sprawl'.

[Acajack]

I think I may have mentioned this before but I was there on the very first day of Transitway operation in 1983, as a teenager going to school. I took it for a couple of years before I moved.

I remember the marketing for the Transitway as all about "cutting edge rapid transit" and how OC Transpo had allegedly studied every single transit option out there, and that the Transitway truly was the best of both worlds: the speed of rapid transit in a dedicated corridor *plus* the convenience of service right at the corner of everyone's street (read = no transfers to get downtown!).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The Transitway did, at best, a mediocre job of inducing TOD. At worst, through the zillion-bus "express" model that was in effect for most of its existence, the Transitway ended up subsidizing "transit-oriented sprawl'.

I don't agree. Ottawa was growing quickly. Sprawl was inevitable. At least the Transitways encouraged some of the suburbanites to leave their cars at home.

I do have a problem with the imbalanced build out of rapid transit that continues to encourage the city to sprawl out linearly. This is going to come back to haunt us in a few decades. The Queensway cannot be widened further across the centre of the city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think I may have mentioned this before but I was there on the very first day of Transitway operation in 1983, as a teenager going to school. I took it for a couple of years before I moved.

I remember the marketing for the Transitway as all about "cutting edge rapid transit" and how OC Transpo had allegedly studied every single transit option out there, and that the Transitway truly was the best of both worlds: the speed of rapid transit in a dedicated corridor *plus* the convenience of service right at the corner of everyone's street (read = no transfers to get downtown!).

And that is very true. The Transitway offered service flexibility. Rail always has the last mile problem.

This can be illustrated by comparatively low model share in Edmonton and Calgary. Calgary's bus network is not very good, so if your trip is not on the C-Train route, you are more inclined to not use transit.

This is a risk for Ottawa too, if we stop investing in our bus network and it has been the recent trend to actually pull money out of the bus network.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And that is very true. The Transitway offered service flexibility. Rail always has the last mile problem.

This can be illustrated by comparatively low model share in Edmonton and Calgary. Calgary's bus network is not very good, so if your trip is not on the C-Train route, you are more inclined to not use transit. .

While I am excited for Ottawans that they will be getting the Confederation Line, there is also the feeling that the Transitway, due to the downtown gap that was never addressed, was never really given a chance to prove its true potential.

Anyway, it's OK. The city has reached *that* point in its psychological evolution, so it's all well and good.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is a risk for Ottawa too, if we stop investing in our bus network and it has been the recent trend to actually pull money out of the bus network.

Indeed. After the opening of the Confederation Line in late 2018 a huge portion (most, actually) of the city will still be hugely dependent upon buses. And even after the two subsequent phases of LRT in the 2020 I'd say many (still most?) of the built-up parts of Ottawa won't really be that close to rail transit either.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're saying the Trudeau government offered to build a subway for a city of half million?

I call BS. I'd like to see some archival links to back this up.

I don't know about the whole Trudeau offered, City rejected story, but the Feds created several subway plans for Ottawa-Hull throughout the years, from as early as 1912 up until the 1970s.

Here's one from the P.E. Trudeau era;



Every single subway plan, up until the Jim Durrell bus tunnel and O'Brien/Watson light-rail tunnel, were drafted by the Feds.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is no need to build expensive, elaborate grade-separated systems to reserve corridors. This could be done with an LRT, an at-grade BRT, or a chain link fence and a sign "reserved for future transit corridor."

There is no need to do so. Sure. But the marginal cost is not anywhere close to what you're portraying it. I live near Cyrville for example. I can't see how any of that corridor was expensive to construct if they already had the ROW.

Originally Posted by acottawa

My understanding is that there was little ridership improvement following the transitway's opening (there was already an express bus system using bus lanes). Most of Ottawa's transit ridership is driven by its largest employer charging "market rates" for parking.

It's not like most employers in downtown Edmonton or Calgary are providing free parking either. And yet, their modal share is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. It's not even close.

And ultimately, that's what is really important here. Ottawa could have built twin tunnelled subways. It'd be pointless if people don't use it. At least BRT allowed seamless service that boosted ridership.

Originally Posted by acottawa

None of those systems in any way resemble Ottawa's transitway except the vehicles are buses. Viva is prettied up bus lanes on an arterial road (I think that is what shift is as well). The TTC York BRT is a surface route, as is the Gatineau BRT.

They are pretty damn close. The only thing they don't have is grade separation. And as I argued earlier. Ottawa only built this where it was cheap to do so. Otherwise, same exclusive ROW.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You're right that grade separation is a key difference (since grade separating rail is way cheaper, every else that wanted grade separation opted for rail). Another key difference is the massively overbuilt infrastructure. Most of the stations are just massive, including little neighbourhood stations with few riders. They looked like they were speced for the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

You've clearly never been to Cyrville or Barrhaven, etc. The only large stations were terminals. There maybe a few that were overbuilt. But by and large, they seem pretty appropriate to me. I am curious. Can you provide an image of what you think the stations should have been built like?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't know about the whole Trudeau offered, City rejected story, but the Feds created several subway plans for Ottawa-Hull throughout the years, from as early as 1912 up until the 1970s.

Here's one from the P.E. Trudeau era;



Every single subway plan, up until the Jim Durrell bus tunnel and O'Brien/Watson light-rail tunnel, were drafted by the Feds.

That would have been pretty great. I share Truenorth's skepticism that the feds were willing to actually pay for such a thing (frankly the NCC Act would allow the feds to build such a thing on its own if it was so motivated).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't know about the whole Trudeau offered, City rejected story, but the Feds created several subway plans for Ottawa-Hull throughout the years, from as early as 1912 up until the 1970s.

Here's one from the P.E. Trudeau era.....
Every single subway plan, up until the Jim Durrell bus tunnel and O'Brien/Watson light-rail tunnel, were drafted by the Feds.

If only they'd offered the billions to build it too....

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That would have been pretty great. I share Truenorth's skepticism that the feds were willing to actually pay for such a thing (frankly the NCC Act would allow the feds to build such a thing on its own if it was so motivated).

It is easy for a federal agency to draw a map. It has no value if a pile of money is not offered to build it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There is no need to do so. Sure. But the marginal cost is not anywhere close to what you're portraying it. I live near Cyrville for example. I can't see how any of that corridor was expensive to construct if they already had the ROW.

It's not like most employers in downtown Edmonton or Calgary are providing free parking either. And yet, their modal share is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. It's not even close.

And ultimately, that's what is really important here. Ottawa could have built twin tunnelled subways. It'd be pointless if people don't use it. At least BRT allowed seamless service that boosted ridership.

They are pretty damn close. The only thing they don't have is grade separation. And as I argued earlier. Ottawa only built this where it was cheap to do so. Otherwise, same exclusive ROW.

You've clearly never been to Cyrville or Barrhaven, etc. They only large stations were terminals. There maybe a few that were overbuilt. But by and large, they seem pretty appropriate to me. I am curious. Can you provide an image of what you think the stations should have been built like?

1. I think you're overestimating the relative cost of land compared to the cost of construction (particularly back in the 80s and 90s when land was pretty cheap). There is a lot of cost in building huge concrete structures, digging kilometers of open trench, overpasses, underpasses, those giant turbofans that ventilated St Laurent station, etc.

2. I'm not super familiar with Calgary parking, but when I search "free parking" on indeed in Calgary I get lots of major employers, including CP.

3. I am not aware that the transitway boosted ridership. I have no first hand knowledge, but charts like this one seem to suggest it did not.



4. Look at the Viva stations. They are one or two bus lengths long. They look nothing like the elaborate concrete structures Ottawa built.



5. I live a 12 minute walk from Cyrville. I have seen the station before it was closed and in the various phases of construction. It was overbuilt for the entire time the transitway operated. A few bus shelters and mechanism for pedestrian crossing (e.g. like Dominion) would have easily met demand. It is still overbuilt, but offers more hope that TOD will eventually increase its usage.

5a) St Laurent Station: the "local" platform which only served about 10 local routes (most with a 10 minute max frequency) has space for about 25 buses to stop.

5b) Almost all of the SE Transitway. These are mostly local neighbourhood stations (and should also resemble Dominion) but have 100m platforms, indoor overpasses, shelters designed for hundreds of people, etc.

5c) Lincoln Fields - Whitest Elephant of them all. Two distinct stations, 400m of platforms and only a handful of local routes to actually transfer to or from.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1. I think you're overestimating the relative cost of land compared to the cost of construction (particularly back in the 80s and 90s when land was pretty cheap). There is a lot of cost in building huge concrete structures, digging kilometers of open trench, overpasses, underpasses, those giant turbofans that ventilated St Laurent station, etc.

2. I'm not super familiar with Calgary parking, but when I search "free parking" on indeed in Calgary I get lots of major employers, including CP.

3. I am not aware that the transitway boosted ridership. I have no first hand knowledge, but charts like this one seem to suggest it did not.



4. Look at the Viva stations. They are one or two bus lengths long. They look nothing like the elaborate concrete structures Ottawa built.



5. I live a 12 minute walk from Cyrville. I have seen the station before it was closed and in the various phases of construction. It was overbuilt for the entire time the transitway operated. A few bus shelters and mechanism for pedestrian crossing (e.g. like Dominion) would have easily met demand. It is still overbuilt, but offers more hope that TOD will eventually increase its usage.

5a) St Laurent Station: the "local" platform which only served about 10 local routes (most with a 10 minute max frequency) has space for about 25 buses to stop.

5b) Almost all of the SE Transitway. These are mostly local neighbourhood stations (and should also resemble Dominion) but have 100m platforms, indoor overpasses, shelters designed for hundreds of people, etc.

5c) Lincoln Fields - Whitest Elephant of them all. Two distinct stations, 400m of platforms and only a handful of local routes to actually transfer to or from.

I'd give the white elephant award to Queensway Station. Hands down.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd give the white elephant award to Queensway Station. Hands down.

Point taken.