LRT Stage 3

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think that is the great hope that Stage 2 won't be as traumatic and problematic.

The bigger risk for Stage 3 is financing. We are expecting the upper levels of government to pay for it in its entirety. Look what happened with Hamilton LRT when the city had no financial stake in getting it built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And look at Toronto where the province is paying 100% of several of their much more expensive transit projects.

We all know why Hamilton got railroaded. Just look the party affiliations for MPPs from there. Now compare the MPPs that would benefit from Stage 3.

Transit projects should have the 1/3rd model for all of them. 1/3rd federal, 1/3rd provincial and 11/3rd municipal. Doing so shows everyone that all levels are serious about transit.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Transit projects should have the 1/3rd model for all of them. 1/3rd federal, 1/3rd provincial and 11/3rd municipal. Doing so shows everyone that all levels are serious about transit.

I tend to agree in principle however, the City of Ottawa has paid well over their 1/3 share for transit projects over the last 10 (15 if we count the cancelled N/S rail). Granted, that was always due to terrible estimations by City staff.

[Truenorth00]

So with Covid and all the economic turmoil that follows, can we write off Stage 3 for a decade? I can't see funding for this materializing before 2030 now.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So with Covid and all the economic turmoil that follows, can we write off Stage 3 for a decade? I can't see funding for this materializing before 2030 now.

It could go either way. Governments might tighten their belts and minimize spending or they'll want to inject billions into economic stimulus which often means major transportation projects. The later is more likely.

Transit ridership is the wildcard. In a post-Covid world, ridership could take a significant hit because of several possible reasons:

1. Commuters become afraid of diseases and start avoiding transit;
2. A significant drop in employment due to layoffs, closing businesses and other factors, significantly reducing potential ridership;
3. More employers allow employees to work from home now that the option has been proven effective;
4. More businesses go online to avoid overhead in case of another pandemic;
5. A further shift to online shopping reduces the number of brick and mortar retail.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So with Covid and all the economic turmoil that follows, can we write off Stage 3 for a decade? I can't see funding for this materializing before 2030 now.

Why?

As I see it, this mess may have the unexpected side effect of needing more mass transit. There are a few reasons for me thinking this:

With the economic downturn and millions not working, people may start getting rid of their cars. They may not be able to afford cars as easily as before. They will still need to get around, so, a reliable LRT system will be needed.

People in major cities are seeing cleaner air. Ottawa is no different. This may drive more people out of their cars. They see that they don't need them, so they will get rid of the second car, or even the primary one.

And finally, With so many companies forced to work from home, we could see that staying, not because of being forced, but because it is working well. With good internet and a phone, why do you need to go to the office?

Now, will we see the LRT extended further out? That is less likely than other new routes in the core. There is a good chance that the heavier used routes will see an LRT before it is extended to another suburban area.

[JHikka]

Can't remember if I read it here or on UT but the assumption is that infrastructure spending will be used post-COVID in an attempt to get people back to work and get the economy moving again. It's likely that everything that's on the table now will still be on the table post-COVID.

[waterloowarrior]

Maybe everyone will move out to the country to get more fresh air. Let's throw in the extensions to Rockland, Carleton Place, and Greeley

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Maybe everyone will move out to the country to get more fresh air. Let's throw in the extensions to Rockland, Carleton Place, and Greeley

Good Day.

Oh yeah..... GOOOOOO Transit !

(Greater Ottawa and Other Outlying Ontario Options Outthere).

[Jayday23]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So with Covid and all the economic turmoil that follows, can we write off Stage 3 for a decade? I can't see funding for this materializing before 2030 now.

honestly that would be for the better. Phase 3 is a travesty. In a city that has so many issues with inner city transportation.... how can you reasonably justify that suburbanites deserve to get shuttled to work monday-friday more than the underserved inner city folks who would use this every single day. Where is the planning principles that suggests that extending a trunk line to the outer suburbs is a better urban planning policy than, let's say, a rapid transit line down bank street... rideau street... carling....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

honestly that would be for the better. Phase 3 is a travesty. In a city that has so many issues with inner city transportation.... how can you reasonably justify that suburbanites deserve to get shuttled to work monday-friday more than the underserved inner city folks who would use this every single day. Where is the planning principles that suggests that extending a trunk line to the outer suburbs is a better urban planning policy than, let's say, a rapid transit line down bank street... rideau street... carling....

Don't forget Montreal Road.

I'm hoping Stage 2 makes it very obvious that good urban transit can increase ridership significantly more than converting a suburban bus way to rail. The addition of Gladstone, Cleary, New Orchard and a proper Dominion will probably result in a higher readership increase than anything in the suburbs.

Lees to Lincoln Fields, maybe even Blair to Bayshore (with a few exceptions), will likely have consistent all day every day ridership while suburban areas like the Orleans branch and Moodie will be as dead as the current Transitway evenings and weekends.

[Acajack]

I basically just looked at Ottawa's overall rapid transit planning for the first time as a whole, and now that I see the big picture, you guys are quite right.

It's astonishing how suburb-focused everything is.

Ever since the original Transitway, which I believe often followed old railway corridors, the planning ethos is often about low-hanging fruit. Let's take advantage of the corridors that are there and easiest. And ignore those that are too complicated.

In fairness, many other cities do this too. But still, there must be a limit to that logic.

I suppose if you confronted a planner they'd tell you that even with a full-blown "ultimate" LRT/BRT system, someone in the Glebe or Vanier could still get downtown in less time than someone in Orleans or Kanata could.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I basically just looked at Ottawa's overall rapid transit planning for the first time as a whole, and now that I see the big picture, you guys are quite right.

It's astonishing how suburb-focused everything is.

Ever since the original Transitway, which I believe often followed old railway corridors, the planning ethos is often about low-hanging fruit. Let's take advantage of the corridors that are there and easiest. And ignore those that are too complicated.

In fairness, many other cities do this too. But still, there must be a limit to that logic.

I suppose if you confronted a planner they'd tell you that even with a full-blown "ultimate" LRT/BRT system, someone in the Glebe or Vanier could still get downtown in less time than someone in Orleans or Kanata could.

The Chiarelli master plan from 2006 took this to the ultimate level, though it included streetcars along Montreal and Carling, for better or worse.


https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/...05-18/POL-0024-document%204-part%202.htm

[lrt's friend]

I said it years ago that what we are building is a compromise between urban and commuter transit and because the focus was on replacing the transitways, the main benefactors are suburban residents. However, since the suburban routes suffer the last mile issue, you will never get the ridership that we might hope for especially during off-peak hours when local bus service is terrible.

The transitways were never ideally located for urban service, so the lack of focus on urban neighbourhoods and destinations means that we won't gain as much as hoped for.

If we really want a better transit system, we need to develop a transit grid that delivers fast and frequent service and brings it closer to more people. Transit needs to be brought to the people, not the current focus of artificially wanting people to live next to transit.

The Chiarelli plan was making a real stab at a transit grid despite its weaknesses. Compare the maps of what was hoped for with the Chiarelli plan and what we are building in the coming decade or so. The difference is amazing. We are really replacing the 1980s and 1990s transitways with the almost the same thing with rail and not much more. Everything else has been deferred or cancelled.

Our current LRT plan will never deliver what was promised because its coverage is far too sparse. It is an extremely expensive system that is great as a backbone but without a grid of supporting frequent service and other improvements throughout the city, it can only achieve so much. Its high cost makes other improvements impossible.

The original O-Train that started all of this delivered much more than what was expected at a very low cost. The Chiarelli plan was an extension of low cost rail lines along with various bus improvements, priorities and new transitways. What we decided to do instead, was implement a high cost Cadillac rail line and as it turned out, powered with only a 4 cylinder engine to artificially curtail costs a wee bit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I basically just looked at Ottawa's overall rapid transit planning for the first time as a whole, and now that I see the big picture, you guys are quite right.

It's astonishing how suburb-focused everything is.

Ever since the original Transitway, which I believe often followed old railway corridors, the planning ethos is often about low-hanging fruit. Let's take advantage of the corridors that are there and easiest. And ignore those that are too complicated.

In fairness, many other cities do this too. But still, there must be a limit to that logic.

I suppose if you confronted a planner they'd tell you that even with a full-blown "ultimate" LRT/BRT system, someone in the Glebe or Vanier could still get downtown in less time than someone in Orleans or Kanata could.

I guess it depends on your goals. If your goal is to bring higher order transit to as many people as possible, then, low hanging fruit is the way to go, as it is usually cheaper upfront.

Now, if your goal is to bring the most amount of higher order transit to the paces that really need it, then you are going to have problems.

Look at Calgary and Edmonton for example. One spent money burying the line downtown, one did not. One has a longer system, one does not.

With Phase 2 already underway, and with a stimulus package coming, we could see all the low hanging fruit gobbled up. Then it would be the needed services that get built, not the easy ones.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Chiarelli master plan from 2006 took this to the ultimate level, though it included streetcars along Montreal and Carling, for better or worse.


https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/...05-18/POL-0024-document%204-part%202.htm

Yikes... building a bunch of what would probably mostly be near-zero ridership railway lines and leaving the bus mess unchanged. Glad we dodged that bullet.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Yikes... building a bunch of what would probably mostly be near-zero ridership railway lines and leaving the bus mess unchanged. Glad we dodged that bullet.

IIRC, the last version of the E-W LRT plan before it was cancelled featured street-running LRT along Walkley Rd, serving Herongate, Heatherington, etc.

Plus there were the studies underway for Carling and Rideau/Montreal.

There is a very valid criticism of the existing LRT plans as being too suburban-focused; the Chiarelli plan was the exact opposite; it was very urban-focused. The lack of a solution for the downtown transitway bus congestion was certainly a problem, but you can't say it ignored the inner city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

IIRC, the last version of the E-W LRT plan before it was cancelled featured street-running LRT along Walkley Rd, serving Herongate, Heatherington, etc.

Plus there were the studies underway for Carling and Rideau/Montreal.

There is a very valid criticism of the existing LRT plans as being too suburban-focused; the Chiarelli plan was the exact opposite; it was very urban-focused. The lack of a solution for the downtown transitway bus congestion was certainly a problem, but you can't say it ignored the inner city.

I believe the Chiarelli plan would have been amended to include a downtown tunnel in due course. Remember the Chiarelli plan dated to 2003. I remember Bob Chiarelli expressing confidence that city council would deal with the downtown issue as required. This was at a time before the need for a downtown tunnel was as acute and before funding for it was available.

This all came about not long after the anti-transit Harris government, so opportunities were much smaller than today.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Yikes... building a bunch of what would probably mostly be near-zero ridership railway lines and leaving the bus mess unchanged. Glad we dodged that bullet.

A low cost cross-town rail line modeled on the original O-Train could have been a major asset to the city. As it stands we have nothing except slow bus routes operating in congested traffic, which is not exactly attractive.

Remember when they took one of the Talent trains all the way out to Kinburn to show that it was possible to use one of the other rail lines. There was lots of thinking out of the box back then trying to find low cost solutions to improving transit. The cost of the original O-Train was very low, which made it possible to use rail on lower-ridership routes.

All our current plans are extremely high cost and require enormous ridership to justify the cost and even then it is questionable that the city can afford to operate it even with the higher levels of government funding a large portion of the capital costs. Just look at the necessity to cut bus frequency when the C-Line opened. The C-Line was actually increasing operating costs. Even the cost of extending the Trillium Line has increased substantially and this is beyond inflation and we are going to be stuck with the white elephant of the airport spur, which will operate at an enormous loss. That loss will be paid for with cuts to bus service across the city. There is only so much money in the budget.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Jayday23

honestly that would be for the better. Phase 3 is a travesty. In a city that has so many issues with inner city transportation.... how can you reasonably justify that suburbanites deserve to get shuttled to work monday-friday more than the underserved inner city folks who would use this every single day. Where is the planning principles that suggests that extending a trunk line to the outer suburbs is a better urban planning policy than, let's say, a rapid transit line down bank street... rideau street... carling....

Honestly don't get this point of view. It sounds like, "If I can't have something, nobody else should."

Yes, the transit network is a little too suburban focused. But arguing against further investment in transit seems to be in rather poor taste. Cutting Phase 3 doesn't mean that investment in inner city transit goes up.

Ottawa is basically having the same problem as Toronto. Suburban Ottawa is outvoting the inner city. When that changes, balance will return to policy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ottawa is basically having the same problem as Toronto. Suburban Ottawa is outvoting the inner city. When that changes, balance will return to policy.

Is this type of power shift really in the offing?