LRT Stage 3

[NOWINYOW]

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.

With the complete unreliability of the current LRT, the fact that buses are being brought back on-line, how can "the city" wise up to anything other than perhaps BRT is a better, more reliable, more consistent success?

[OCCheetos]

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?

For any bus traversing the greenbelt, it has to travel 12km while collecting no revenue per round trip. That's energy spent, time spent, and roughly 6 operator's wages paid for that time spent.

It's pretty easy to see where the savings are there. Far more clear than the savings that Stage 1 were supposed to bring.

But as far as I'm aware, your assertion that the savings from Stage 1 completely fell through is still just a hypothesis, isn't it?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

With the complete unreliability of the current LRT, the fact that buses are being brought back on-line, how can "the city" wise up to anything other than perhaps BRT is a better, more reliable, more consistent success?

BRT still can't carry more than 10,000 ppdph on a non-fully-segregated right of way, and with our standards it won't be able to carry more than 15,000 ppdph on a fully-segregated right of way either.

BRT isn't all bad, but that doesn't mean that BRT is all great either. There's a lot of nuance to it.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

This is exactly why I think the South Eastern Transitway should never be converted to Light Rail. It won't ever have the ridership required to need one and it does a far better job of serving its lower-density surroundings by being able to "branch off".

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

With the complete unreliability of the current LRT, the fact that buses are being brought back on-line, how can "the city" wise up to anything other than perhaps BRT is a better, more reliable, more consistent success?

I don't agree with this either. The reliability issues with our LRT are temporary "teething" issues and have been improving significantly. But having LRT doesn't mean that all feeder buses should be eliminated. It is those excessive cuts to feeder buses that have been somewhat reversed.

It's not LRT=good and BRT=bad or LRT=bad and BRT=good, it's using the appropriate technology in the right place.

And if Stage 3 funding is years away, then let's build some smaller, more achievable things (like Baseline BRT) first.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

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.

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.

So, You have a finite amount of taxpayer dollars to spend. We should upgrade the high ridership corridors first. If other BRT corridors are not high enough to warrant upgrading, leave them as is. Then if more money is available, but no BRT is in need of upgrading, then you add more BRT.

As far as Vancouver. Their B-lines/BRT is not the same as Ottawa's transitways. They are at best, in their own lane with signal priority. At worst, just signal priority. Most of the B lines are upgraded to Skytrain. The ones that aren't will be. The new ones likely are the future Skytrain lines too. Maybe Ottawa should take that idea and use it. All BRTs must become future LRT as funds become available. If there would be no future plans for upgrading to LRT, then they stay regular bus routes.

Originally Posted by 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.

I am not agueing that Baseline should not have BRT. I am arguing that LRT upgrades where BRT already exist is more important than new BRT. Think of it this way, lets say that $300M is what is needed to extend the LRT 1 more stop, which is a better place to spend it? What if that 1 more stop would mean you and many others could just walk to the station to get a single seat ride downtown? What if that 1 stop is close to a place, like a retirement home, where the ease of use will be better for the residents in that area?

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

With the complete unreliability of the current LRT, the fact that buses are being brought back on-line, how can "the city" wise up to anything other than perhaps BRT is a better, more reliable, more consistent success?

This is known as teething. The city should have planned the first year having empty buses chasing the LRT into downtown. Instead, the cut service and expected the best. BRT is not more reliable, but is more flexible. A freezing rain storm hits, wich service; BRT or LRT would sufffer more with slowdowns and cancellations?

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

BRT still can't carry more than 10,000 ppdph on a non-fully-segregated right of way, and with our standards it won't be able to carry more than 15,000 ppdph on a fully-segregated right of way either.

BRT isn't all bad, but that doesn't mean that BRT is all great either. There's a lot of nuance to it.

Glad someone else understands this.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This is exactly why I think the South Eastern Transitway should never be converted to Light Rail. It won't ever have the ridership required to need one and it does a far better job of serving its lower-density surroundings by being able to "branch off".

This would be smart planning. If something works well and needs no improvement, leave it. Again, it comes down to where is the greatest need. If it works fine as is, then leave it. If it is getting to the point where more service is needed, time to upgrade. However, if someone else is even worse, then upgrade that first.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

That feature of BRT is an "advantage", but also a weakness. If you can constantly detour and re-route buses on and off your BRT, you end up with more efficient bus movement, sure, but it does nothing in the way of city-building. The "flexibility" is what made the Ottawa Transitway so bad at doing anything other than moving buses and so poor at inducing what little, feeble, transit-oriented city-building we've seen since the mid-80s.

[Uhuniau]

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.

Route 12 gets more than that already, but the city treats it like crap.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

With the complete unreliability of the current LRT, the fact that buses are being brought back on-line, how can "the city" wise up to anything other than perhaps BRT is a better, more reliable, more consistent success?

By what measure is the LRT suffering from "complete unreliability"?

Can you point out an example of a completely-reliably rail transit system by that same measure?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Route 12 gets more than that already, but the city treats it like crap.

If BRT could be easily built on Montreal Rd then I would argue for it, but there is no space. The solutions to the 12 are probably numerous:

-more parking restrictions
-bus lane enforcement (e.g. cameras)
-traffic signal priority (e.g. held green lights/early greens so buses can get through)
-stop consolidation (coming in Montreal Rd project)
-bus queue jumps (coming in Montreal Rd project)
-improved bus stops/passenger info (coming in Montreal Rd project)
-higher bus frequency
-better bus headway management

If the street network was more of a grid then I'd say let's try a King St-style setup, but the problem is there are not really any streets that are parallel to Montreal Rd.

In the long term I'd love to see a subway on Montreal Rd but I don't think the ridership and density in the area are anywhere close to what would be needed to justify it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

For any bus traversing the greenbelt, it has to travel 12km while collecting no revenue per round trip. That's energy spent, time spent, and roughly 6 operator's wages paid for that time spent.

It's pretty easy to see where the savings are there. Far more clear than the savings that Stage 1 were supposed to bring.

But as far as I'm aware, your assertion that the savings from Stage 1 completely fell through is still just a hypothesis, isn't it?

Hypothesis? Yes. The reason I get concerned is how Stage 1 was rolled out with bus service cuts on many routes. Then there were comments recently that were in the media that we were spending $4M to $5M on maintenance per month for stage 1. We are now seeing that the transit budget is being increased to upgrade bus service, often just to former levels. So, it does not take a rocket scientist to make this kind of hypothesis.

When it comes to crossing the Greenbelt, whether it is buses or trains, we will have to pay for both the equipment, infrastructure and the operators. Yes, we save on bus operators, but the maintenance contract on the trains and LRT infrastructure is substantial. As we reach the Greenbelt, the need for buses is not as great as in the centre of the city, therefore, it is quite possible that the maintenance cost of LRT will far exceed the cost of operating the required number of buses across the Greenbelt.

For example, if it costs $50M per year to run Phase 1 of LRT and the cost of operating comparable bus service was say $60M per year based on 100 buses per hour each way. When we get to the Greenbelt, the cost might be 75% for LRT compared to downtown. We may run half as many trains, but we still have to maintain the full LRT infrastructure. In the case of buses, the actual number of buses might be 40 per hour only the peak direction, and less in the off-peak direction, so the cost might be 30 to 40% to maintain bus operations at the needed level compared to downtown.

Maybe my logic is crazy and I am happy to hear other comments.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

If BRT could be easily built on Montreal Rd then I would argue for it, but there is no space. The solutions to the 12 are probably numerous:

-bus lane enforcement (e.g. cameras)

Ya gots ta have bus lanes before you can enforce them. Montreal Road isn't really getting bus lanes, certainly not as was promised in the existing, fictional, transit plan.

-traffic signal priority (e.g. held green lights/early greens so buses can get through)

Very weak signal priority might maybe sorta be coming to two intersections as part of the Montreal Road project.

-stop consolidation (coming in Montreal Rd project)

Yes, it's already been decided that stops will be consolidated, in many cases in the worst of possible locations, with a strong preference for anti-passenger far-side stops.

-improved bus stops/passenger info (coming in Montreal Rd project)

I'll believe it when I see it, but spending tens of thousands of dollars a pop on these screens is about priority 5,602 on my list of what would actually improve urban transit in urban Ottawa.

I'd also note that these stupid screens are STILL not functional at Parliament station's surface bus stops, four full months after the LRT opened. OC Transpo really doesn't treat bus passengers or urban transit passengers very well, and if you fall into both classes....

-higher bus frequency

LOL

-better bus headway management

LOL LOL LOL LOL DIES IS REBORN LOL AGAIN

If the street network was more of a grid then I'd say let's try a King St-style setup, but the problem is there are not really any streets that are parallel to Montreal Rd.

Which is all the more reason to give so much more transit priority to our urban main streets, especially since this city is cheap and anti-urban. It is literally the least that can be done for the urban core, and by gum, the city and OC Transpo keep coming up with clever ways of not doing it.

In the long term I'd love to see a subway on Montreal Rd but I don't think the ridership and density in the area are anywhere close to what would be needed to justify it.

The northeast quadrant of the urban core is the densest part of Ottawa, and Route 12 is the highest non-transitway bus ridership in town. If we aren't going to prioritize this corridor... where would we?

At some point the urban core needs investment; we can't keep hollowing it out to pay for higher-order transit to low-density post-war suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

The northeast quadrant of the urban core is the densest part of Ottawa, and Route 12 is the highest non-transitway bus ridership in town. If we aren't going to prioritize this corridor... where would we?

Higher than combined Route 6 and 7 ridership on Bank Street?

Clearly, we want to bring new density to transit rather than transit to existing density. And nothing better, than running our best transit right next to the Queensway to serve cars rather than people. This is why Toronto runs their subways next to the 401 and Don Valley Parkway, or maybe I am mistaken.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

At some point the urban core needs investment; we can't keep hollowing it out to pay for higher-order transit to low-density post-war suburbs.

Arguments that current ridership isn't high enough to build a subway along the Rideau/Montreal corridor are a bit like the arguing to not build a bridge because no one is swimming across the river. The fact that route 12 gets as high ridership as it does, despite how poor the service is, should be an indication of how much ridership fast/frequent transit service would produce.

The problem is it would be extremely expensive and I am not sure if we could raise enough money for a subway. The question is, do we do nothing because we can't afford this, or do we find more affordable projects that also add value.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Higher than combined Route 6 and 7 ridership on Bank Street?

Probably not quite, but if we want to make the multi-route comparison, we could lump some of the east-end routes into the 12 as well.

Clearly, we want to bring new density to transit rather than transit to existing density. And nothing better, than running our best transit right next to the Queensway to serve cars rather than people. This is why Toronto runs their subways next to the 401 and Don Valley Parkway, or maybe I am mistaken.

Yup. This "city" is going to amazing lengths to turn itself inside out. All the pretty words in all the pretty plans about density and compactness and diversity mean nothing when the prime beneficiaries of almost every public policy and budgetary decision are the suburbs.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The northeast quadrant of the urban core is the densest part of Ottawa, and Route 12 is the highest non-transitway bus ridership in town. If we aren't going to prioritize this corridor... where would we?

At some point the urban core needs investment; we can't keep hollowing it out to pay for higher-order transit to low-density post-war suburbs.

LOL, I guess I should have thought this through before deciding to enage Uhuniau on route 12. Anyway here goes.

I'll start of by saying that I strongly believe in transit as well as in cycling infrastructure. I'm happy that Montreal Rd is getting bike lanes. I'm sad that this means it is losing the EB bus lane. The current plan is a compromise that I nevertheless think will make Montreal Rd a much more people friendly street.

As i understand it, the right lane on Montreal Rd is to narrow for buses in some spots as it is. So having bus lanes the full length probably would have needed the road would have needed to be widened, making the sidewalks even narrower. Nobody would have wanted that. Having that lane clearly isn't a panacea either, or route 12 would run perfectly today.

Ya gots ta have bus lanes before you can enforce them. Montreal Road isn't really getting bus lanes, certainly not as was promised in the existing, fictional, transit plan.

Well, Rideau Street has bus lanes. On Montreal Rd, the right lanes in both directions between North River and Vanier will be bus lanes at peak, as will the right lane WB from St Laurent to Vanier.

So, of the total 4km length from Rideau Station to St Laurent, there will be WB bus lanes the full length at AM peak, and at PM peak, over half of the distance will have EB bus lanes (2.3km).

Very weak signal priority might maybe sorta be coming to two intersections as part of the Montreal Road project.
...
Yes, it's already been decided that stops will be consolidated, in many cases in the worst of possible locations, with a strong preference for anti-passenger far-side stops.

These two statements are contradictory. If you want to have signal priority to hold the green for buses and allow them to get through the intersection, you need to have far side bus stops. I'm not sure why far-side stops are "anti passenger" but they have been proven to reduce transit trip times.

[swimmer_spe]

Could another tunnel be built under downtown connect with Montreal Rd? Where would be a good west exit be?

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

By what measure is the LRT suffering from "complete unreliability"?

Can you point out an example of a completely-reliably rail transit system by that same measure?

The original Ottawa BRT route operated for decades without major issues. The day-to-day costs of operation were reasonable. LRT has and continues to have issues. The confidence of many users is lost, at least for now.

[McC]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Could another tunnel be built under downtown connect with Montreal Rd? Where would be a good west exit be?

A west exit could be on the hill on Carling west of Bronson, or a south exit on Bank south of Riverside...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

The original Ottawa BRT route operated for decades without major issues. The day-to-day costs of operation were reasonable. LRT has and continues to have issues. The confidence of many users is lost, at least for now.

So, the Central Transitway, the one big completely unreliable mess should be ignored?

I'll bet that a year from now, we will all agree it was good to put the LRT in.

Originally Posted by McC

A west exit could be on the hill on Carling west of Bronson, or a south exit on Bank south of Riverside...

What would it connect to beyond that?