Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
And if they had completely put off Trillium upgrades till they had more capital to do it properly, just imagine what people like lrt's friend would be saying on here.
They split the difference and gave you a half baked single-track DMU line because that's probably going to meet demand for decades (2048 by their estimation). This is what happens when politics and emotions intrude instead of letting planners build higher-order transit solely based on cost and ridership considerations.
As they say, "be careful what you wish for..."
|
I might be passionate about the subject, but I can also look at quite rationally and logically. I have worked in logistics for well over a decade, and have a background in GIS. So developing models to determine things like transit ridership is actually something I am capable of doing and understanding. I also know that models can say whatever you want them too. Not saying that was what happened in this case, but they are far from perfect.
Taking a more specific consideration into account, it wouldn't be surprising if their models didn't show massive ridership growth for the south end because of the existence of an alternate route, the SE Transitway. Unlike the C-Line, where the Transitway is being completely wiped out and replaced with LRT, which means it will capture all of the existing Transitway demand, and then some, the N-S LRT route wont. A lot of people are still going to find the bus is a better option (relative to what is being offered), so they will just stick with that.
And this is a case where your statement about emotions and politics plays true. The city has had this attachment to the Trillium Line since it started out as a pilot project, and in 2006, and 2010, and now 2019, has tried to find ways to integrate it into a larger LRT network. But using it for the N-S route doesn't actually make a lot of sense. It wont provide the best service, relative to a converted SET. It will likely be more costly. It will use an older technology, which means it wont be compatible with lower platforms, just no interlining, nor will it be able to take advantage of the efficiency gains of automated systems. The desire to "do something" with the T-Line, in part because it "is there" has partly contributed to the slapdash plan that was just approved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Absolutely disagree. At triple today's ridership, the Trillium Line would still have a fraction of what the Transitway does today. And we still shut down large chunks of the Transitway. If they ever extend Confederation all the way to Barrhaven, shutting down the Trillium Line will be quite easy. All feeder traffic can be directed away. This is something a lot of people don't get about the Trillium Line. Not a lot of it is walk on ridership. It's either fed by buses or park n ride traffic. Those riders can be reasonably moved to alternative lines for a few years.
|
They shut down the Transitway because there were zero ways around it. Just as there is no way around the fact that the T-Line needs to be closed for the planned expansion. But image if some sections of the new C-Line had to be closed a second time? People would be livid. Yes, people are making a sacrifice with closures while the C-Line is being built. But they also know they will only have to do that once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Ask lrt's friend and all those southern residents if they'd rather have this investment or zero investment.
|
People will almost always take something over nothing. It is human nature. Look at a lot of the councillors thoughts about phase 2. There were a lot of reservations and questions about it all. Especially in the south end where they have waited a decade for LRT to start making its way there. And even with this investment, less than 10% of the overall spending on LRT so far has been for transit in the south end. They would have the right to be upset, just like they have the right to be upset about a questionable plan being pushed through with almost time to even consider it and address legitimate issues that people are bringing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
The city has taken on so much debt between stage 1 and 2, that it can't really afford major works. And there's still expensive transitways and possibly in-median LRT on Carling to fund. It'll be pretty unprecedented for the feds and Queen's Park to pay entirely for a transit expansion without municipal contribution. I'll bet that's aimed at getting funding for Barrhaven and Kanata. That means nothing for Trillium for probably two to three decades.
|
Urban transit hasn't really been on the table for the past decade. So yeah, I totally agree that after what will likely be a 15 year, $8-10 billion dollar investment in bringing LRT to the suburbs (coming from all levels of government) the urban section of the Trillium Line wont see any upgrades again for several decades (unless it is part of some federally funded interprovincial transit program, which is not likely). As I mentioned in another thread, Barrhaven and Kanata will get their extensions, there will be a "fix the south" type investment to connect the airport and southern suburbs into a converted SET and modernize the southern end of the line, and that is it. Carling. The urban section of the T-Line. An extension to Gatineau. None of that will even be on the table (unless they are part of some one off special projects).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Actually, I just wish they spent all of it on twin-tracking and airport expansion. Even electrification isn't really necessary for these ridership levels (and arguably could have been funded by the city itself in due course). I just disagree with going all the way down to Leitrim and Riverside South. That bit is dubious to me. But that's how politics works and I understand this. Toronto ended up building a subway to Vaughan so it could get funding for a subway extension to York U.
|
I would argue that if the plan was actually thoughtful and considered, those extensions could have worked. A single track for each branch to the airport and Riverside could have been a perfect starting point for those services. But the fact that even when we disagree, we still agree that the plan isn't great, kind of sums up what a mess it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
On one hand you say low ridership and on other, both you and lrt's friend say ridership could triple. Which is it?
I'd argue that Trillium is going to provide great return on investment. Ridership will probably double within 5 years after launch and probably triple today in 10-20 years. That will have been great return on what was spent.
|
What would the increase in ridership be if the T-Line was essentially left untouched (save the addition of a station at Walkley and Gladstone), and instead the SET was converted to LRT and used to provide service to the airport and further south? How much more efficiency would they have been able to gain in providing bus services if they had that LRT line feed passengers into and reduce the number of longer distance bus trips? Ridership should double almost overnight just due to the increase in stations and places served, along with marginal frequency increases. But having the T-Line simply be a line that runs between Bayview and a station on part of an SET LRT line, with a few more local stations, and slightly improved frequency, could very well have doubled ridership as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
This obsession with getting downtown is going to be hugely problematic in the long run. Good transit systems are designed to let you go anywhere in the city. And by accident, the Trillium Line and Southeast Transitway are well positioned for development of the areas just outside downtown. Coming from Toronto where both the GO Train and TTC subway network are very downtown centric, I see this as an advantage, not a flaw.
|
That is where the majority of suburban commuters want to go though. I know the point you are trying to make, and it isn't that I disagree with you. But talking about transit and development will lead to a very long deviation....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Not every project is going to be "great". But we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. Trillium Stage 2 is moving the ball forward and will make it easier for some people to commute. It will also show that demand exists beyond just Carleton in that corridor, and help make the case for that eventual investment that twins the tracks.
|
I agree with that sentiment. But there are degrees of "not perfect". The C-Line isn't perfect. But it is close enough that it is easy to just let them slide. The T-Line project isn't great. It isn't even good. It is kind of a terrible.
Now, having said all that, I am over it. The plan was approved and it is going ahead. But more than that, all the discussion I have had here, and with people elsewhere, have made me realize that the T-Line isn't the right choice of infrastructure for creating a modern, high capacity, N-S transit line, for the reasons I have stated above, along with others. So the fact that this plan boxed the T-Line into a state of semi-irrelevancy might well be a good thing in the long run. That might be me trying to put an optimistic spin on things in light of the outcome. But just as the city already had a transit network heading into Orleans, Barrhaven, and Kanata, it already has one for the south, and that is probably the one should ultimately be used, and a better, more suitable purpose for the T-Line can be figured out.
Edit; I would also that there is a big wild card factor, which is the reality when the various phases come online. Public perception, cost savings, rider experience, time saved, time lost, ease or challenge of use. All these factors are going to have a big impact on what the public is willing to fund, and accept, in the future.
Prev
Linear Mode
