LRT Stage 3

[Jayday23]

Phase 3 is a travesty. The fact that the Watson administration stands by and actually continues to promote transit to support the growth of the suburbs - and not say - the inner core - is complete against the most basic of urban planning principles. Why the public isn't outraged that we will likely never have a bank street subway or connection to Rideau street ( past RC) and Vanier is shocking....

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

Phase 3 is a travesty. The fact that the Watson administration stands by and actually continues to promote transit to support the growth of the suburbs - and not say - the inner core - is complete against the most basic of urban planning principles. Why the public isn't outraged that we will likely never have a bank street subway or connection to Rideau street ( past RC) and Vanier is shocking....

My original vision left suburban commuters mostly on a bus based system, while gradually building rail out of downtown on new under-serviced routes. The plan to convert the Transitways to rail made it necessary to do a total conversion first which is enormously expensive. This leaves no money for generations to invest in other new routes and requires rail to have an almost exclusively suburban focus. So visions for another subway or significant improvements on other corridors have to go out the window. Will we even see the Baseline BRT now? We are left with a network that is not much different than what we built in the 1980s and 1990s after spending several billion. As we are now seeing, Phase 1 has had underwhelming benefit and so far, many are receiving worse service than even during the detour period.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

Phase 3 is a travesty. The fact that the Watson administration stands by and actually continues to promote transit to support the growth of the suburbs - and not say - the inner core - is complete against the most basic of urban planning principles. Why the public isn't outraged that we will likely never have a bank street subway or connection to Rideau street ( past RC) and Vanier is shocking....

I think it makes perfect sense to extend LRT beyond the Greenbelt, but not necessarily all the way into the suburbs. The Greenbelt is a money sink for operating buses and being able to use larger, more efficient vehicles is a huge win for everyone.

It does make sense to plan out the entire extension though if for no other reason than to protect future corridors.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think it makes perfect sense to extend LRT beyond the Greenbelt, but not necessarily all the way into the suburbs. The Greenbelt is a money sink for operating buses and being able to use larger, more efficient vehicles is a huge win for everyone.

It does make sense to plan out the entire extension though if for no other reason than to protect future corridors.

So, you see a situation where no buses cross the Greenbelt?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

Phase 3 is a travesty. The fact that the Watson administration stands by and actually continues to promote transit to support the growth of the suburbs - and not say - the inner core - is complete against the most basic of urban planning principles. Why the public isn't outraged that we will likely never have a bank street subway or connection to Rideau street ( past RC) and Vanier is shocking....

The real outrage is that, having killed any prospect of mass URBAN transit in Ottawa any time in the 21st century, the city also has no plan to at least improve the flow of buses on surface streets, and has in fact approved a bunch of urban main street rebuilds that will result in worse bus service, not better.

The only thing that urban residents are getting out of the Watson plan, except where is it incidental to providing downtown-to-suburb rail links, is a pro-rata share of the bill to build LRT to Kanata and Orleans.

This is going to go a long way towards (further) hollowing out of the core. Which is bad.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, you see a situation where no buses cross the Greenbelt?

I don’t think OCCheetos was trying to say that. The key is to get the throng of busses off of the major funnels to downtown (like the 417, 174 and the south-west transitway). Routes on other, less used corridors through the greenbelt (like Hazeldean and Innes) would continue to operate.

[lrt's friend]

I have become a little disillusioned by the 'so called' cost savings of rail. Will running trains across the Greenbelt be any cheaper than running buses?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

Phase 3 is a travesty. The fact that the Watson administration stands by and actually continues to promote transit to support the growth of the suburbs - and not say - the inner core - is complete against the most basic of urban planning principles. Why the public isn't outraged that we will likely never have a bank street subway or connection to Rideau street ( past RC) and Vanier is shocking....

Riley Brockington stated on Twitter this weekend that Baseline BRT will not move forward until there is federal & provincial funding.

I don't even hear anyone talking about asking for funding for this project; I only hear about Phase 3. I am OK with Phase 3 in the long term but in the short term I am pissed off that relatively affordable and easy to implement projects within the Greenbelt are on hold because of a Phase 3 that will cost billions.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Riley Brockington stated on Twitter this weekend that Baseline BRT will not move forward until there is federal & provincial funding.

I don't even hear anyone talking about asking for funding for this project; I only hear about Phase 3. I am OK with Phase 3 in the long term but in the short term I am pissed off that relatively affordable and easy to implement projects within the Greenbelt are on hold because of a Phase 3 that will cost billions.

As you have seen with my posts about the Baseline BRT over the last few years, this confirms my suspicions that this was not a priority at all and we were not really serious about building it. What a loss of connectivity. Every project to improve transit within the Greenbelt has now been cancelled or indefinitely delayed. Baseline, Carling, Rideau-Montreal Rd, the Hospital corridor to Innes, the cross-town rail corridor. Nothing left.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have become a little disillusioned by the 'so called' cost savings of rail. Will running trains across the Greenbelt be any cheaper than running buses?

It is hard to say. A lot of it depends how you measure the cost. Many of the costs are fixed regardless of how long the line is or how many trains you run. Are those costs amortized over the extension or do you only look at the additional costs for running over the extension?

Personally, for the purpose of decided to extend or not to extend, I think the latter is the better way of looking at it as we have to pay those fixed costs regardless. OTOH, if you amortize those costs, it helps justify the overall cost of the system.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As you have seen with my posts about the Baseline BRT over the last few years, this confirms my suspicions that this was not a priority at all and we were not really serious about building it. What a loss of connectivity. Every project to improve transit within the Greenbelt has now been cancelled or indefinitely delayed. Baseline, Carling, Rideau-Montreal Rd, the Hospital corridor to Innes, the cross-town rail corridor. Nothing left.

Maybe the city is wising up to the fact the BRT, while nice, isn't going to cut it. Maybe those places are getting looked at for LRT.

Ottawa should really move away from BRT building and just do LRT or higher order.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe the city is wising up to the fact the BRT, while nice, isn't going to cut it. Maybe those places are getting looked at for LRT.

Ottawa should really move away from BRT building and just do LRT or higher order.

No, I don't agree. Each technology has its strengths and we need to use the right tool for the job.

LRT replaced the central transitway because we needed something to be able to carry 10K+ people per hour. BRT didn't make sense anymore because we outgrew it.

On Baseline, we don't need that level of capacity, but BRT would significantly improve the reliability and speed of bus service which would increase ridership and improve connections on the network. LRT on Baseline would be a significant overbuild for no added benefit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

No, I don't agree. Each technology has its strengths and we need to use the right tool for the job.

LRT replaced the central transitway because we needed something to be able to carry 10K+ people per hour. BRT didn't make sense anymore because we outgrew it.

On Baseline, we don't need that level of capacity, but BRT would significantly improve the reliability and speed of bus service which would increase ridership and improve connections on the network. LRT on Baseline would be a significant overbuild for no added benefit.

How long would the BRT be in place for? Why would you want to see it be rebuilt twice, when once for the LRT would be enough.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

No, I don't agree. Each technology has its strengths and we need to use the right tool for the job.

LRT replaced the central transitway because we needed something to be able to carry 10K+ people per hour. BRT didn't make sense anymore because we outgrew it.

On Baseline, we don't need that level of capacity, but BRT would significantly improve the reliability and speed of bus service which would increase ridership and improve connections on the network. LRT on Baseline would be a significant overbuild for no added benefit.

Actually, it is even more than that. The advantage of BRT is the flexibility that it offers. Bus routes are not restricted entirely to the built BRT corridor. They can go further and branch off in various directions. With LRT, you are restricted to the built route.

You are correct in your comments that we outgrew the central Transitway corridor but as we are now seeing, there are problems with the imposed transfers. So, there is a definite advantage of BRT where it makes sense.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How long would the BRT be in place for? Why would you want to see it be rebuilt twice, when once for the LRT would be enough.

I think it would be decades (if ever) before ridership on Baseline would require an upgrade to LRT. The forecast is 10k riders/day by 2031 if BRT is built.

Holding of on smaller but meaningful improvements now because want to avoid ever having to upgrade it later doesn't seem to make sense. Smaller improvements help build ridership to justify later upgrades. If you never make the initial smaller improvements, you can't justify later upgrades.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I think it would be decades (if ever) before ridership on Baseline would require an upgrade to LRT. The forecast is 10k riders/day by 2031 if BRT is built.

Holding of on smaller but meaningful improvements now because want to avoid ever having to upgrade it later doesn't seem to make sense. Smaller improvements help build ridership to justify later upgrades. If you never make the initial smaller improvements, you can't justify later upgrades.

The city has a finite amount of funds it can get access to. If they build the corridors that need it more first, then it makes sense. The fact that they will be extending the LRT over current BRT lines shows that to be true. Maybe the city will reach a point where all that needs LRT has been built and go back to building BRT. Till then, why not start getting the councilors to listen to you?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The city has a finite amount of funds it can get access to. If they build the corridors that need it more first, then it makes sense. The fact that they will be extending the LRT over current BRT lines shows that to be true. Maybe the city will reach a point where all that needs LRT has been built and go back to building BRT. Till then, why not start getting the councilors to listen to you?

Hi, I'm engaged with several councillors.

I don't disagree that we should prioritize the corridors that are more important. But you seem to be suggesting that until we can afford to build LRT (and specifically the lines to Kanata and Barrhaven), we should do nothing else, even if we could afford to do things that are more affordable, more incremental and would provide a greater benefit to the overall transit network. I fundamentally disagree with that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Hi, I'm engaged with several councillors.

I don't disagree that we should prioritize the corridors that are more important. But you seem to be suggesting that until we can afford to build LRT (and specifically the lines to Kanata and Barrhaven), we should do nothing else, even if we could afford to do things that are more affordable, more incremental and would provide a greater benefit to the overall transit network. I fundamentally disagree with that.

Is Kanata or Barrhaven it;s own city/town?

The council needs to think of everyone who pays taxes with in the City of Ottawa. Upgrading existing BRT to LRT due to need is not shortsighted or detrimental to the system. It is what large cities do.

Think of BRT as "just buses". Now, there are places in the City that have "just buses" that are busy. There are other places in the City that have "just buses" that are not so busy. And, of course there are places that want "just buses", but are not that busy. Where do you put the money to?

The problem is most residents seem to want to think they are not in a major city. Ottawa is one of the top 10 major cities by population in Canada. It is time the council and the residents think that way and do big city things, like invest in true rapid transit.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The council needs to think of everyone who pays taxes with in the City of Ottawa. Upgrading existing BRT to LRT due to need is not shortsighted or detrimental to the system. It is what large cities do.

Lots of large cities have BRT. Vancouver just launched several new rapid bus routes: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/01/translink-launches-new-rapidbus-service/

BRT should be upgraded to LRT where is makes sense, not just because "it is what large cities do." For example, Vancouver is going to build a Broadway subway, but the ridership on that corridor has been built for years by a bus route which is now the busiest in North America.

Think of BRT as "just buses". Now, there are places in the City that have "just buses" that are busy. There are other places in the City that have "just buses" that are not so busy. And, of course there are places that want "just buses", but are not that busy. Where do you put the money to?

I'm not sure if "just buses" is supposed to be some kind of put-down of buses, but obviously the answer is the 1st one; the city should invest in high-ridership corridors to further build ridership, and upgrade them to increase capacity when warranted.

[lrt's friend]

I want to build rapid transit based on a cost/benefit analysis. As a taxpayer, I want the best bang for my buck. So, if we can build BRT on Baseline for $300M so that buses run much faster than today or we can spend $1B to accomplish exactly the same thing with LRT, and BRT will deliver adequate capacity for 50 years, then BRT is the obvious choice. The only advantage LRT can give us, is if BRT capacity is not enough or we can build a faster system with LRT. Clearly buses can run just as fast as LRT with a similar corridor, so the only way to make LRT faster than buses is to spend much more money on grade separation. I would say that ridership potential is not great enough to justify grade separation on Baseline in the forseeable future.

The scenario where investment in rail makes sense for a lower ridership situation is if the rail infrastructure already exists, like what happened when the Trillium line first started. Construction costs can then be severely constrained because the right of way and often grade separations already exist.