Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

An all electric fleet also substantially reduces the cost of deadheading. In any scenario where buses are all electric, there's no justification to go beyond the first stop after the Greenbelt.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. How does an all electric fleet reduce the cost of deadheading and why would having all buses electric change the "justification to go beyond the first stop after the Greenbelt?" I am not trying to argue against you, just understand your argument.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I certainly don't disagree with you on that. The unfortunate reality is (assuming you consider only wards 12 (Rideau-Vanier), 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe), 14 (Somerset), and 17 (Capital) to be urban, only about 17% of Ottawa's population lives in the urban area.

I would add Kitchissippi and Bay in there. They have the benefit of being on the way to Kanata, so they will get raid transit!

I thought the previous transit chair was Councillor Allan Hubley - Kanata South (ward 23). I agree that was a poor choice, but by no means a rural ward.

Hubley is the current chair. As someone who's never taken transit for anything other than photo-ops, terrible choice indeed.

Cumberland Ward's Stephen Blais use to be the transit chair. Cumberland is mostly rural but does include some parts of suburban Orleans.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

An all electric fleet also substantially reduces the cost of deadheading. In any scenario where buses are all electric, there's no justification to go beyond the first stop after the Greenbelt.

I'm not sure the cost-benefit exists for Barrhaven LRT, but I don't agree with this argument. The majority of the cost of transit is labour. Electric buses don't change the cost of labour for the time spent deadheading.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. How does an all electric fleet reduce the cost of deadheading and why would having all buses electric change the "justification to go beyond the first stop after the Greenbelt?" I am not trying to argue against you, just understand your argument.

I'll take a crack at it.

An electric fleet would save on dead-heading because they wouldn't be wasting fuel heading across town or idling by waiting for the next shift.

For the justification to go beyond the Greenbelt, he's referring to the O-Train network. One of the major talking points is that rail is far better for the environment than smelly diesel buses, but if we have an all electric fleet, that argument is out the window. Add the fact that Barrhaven and Kanata don't have the density or ridership to support rapid transit, and the business case is non-existent.

Most people in the suburbs take the bus or drive to the nearest rail station, so it doesn't really matter if that station is at Fallowfield/Terry Fox vs Barrhaven Town Centre/Hazeldean. I do get how Moodie/Algonquin might be more problematic because they are not served by park-and-rides.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm not sure the cost-benefit exists for Barrhaven LRT, but I don't agree with this argument. The majority of the cost of transit is labour. Electric buses don't change the cost of labour for the time spent deadheading.

My last paragraph provides a partial argument for this. We'll need just about the same number of buses and drivers whether the terminus is at Fallowfield or Barrhaven Town Centre. In addition, an automated metro under Bank, Rideau-Montreal would eliminate far more buses and drivers than the suburban extensions proposed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Hubley is the current chair. As someone who's never taken transit for anything other than photo-ops, terrible choice indeed.

Cumberland Ward's Stephen Blais use to be the transit chair. Cumberland is mostly rural but does include some parts of suburban Orleans.

But, according to this announcement on February 12, 2020.

City Council today approved the appointment of Beacon Hill-Cyrville Ward Councillor Tim Tierney as Chair of the Transportation Committee.

Edit: Never mind. I confused the Transportation Committee, and the Transit Commission.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would add Kitchissippi and Bay in there. They have the benefit of being on the way to Kanata, so they will get raid transit!

I am not sure I agree that they are urban not suburban (especially Ward 7. Bay), but if you do it only jumps to about 26%.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not sure I agree that they are urban not suburban (especially Ward 7. Bay), but if you do it only jumps to about 26%.

I would definitely call Kitchissippi urban, but Bay could go either way.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

An electric fleet would save on dead-heading because they wouldn't be wasting fuel heading across town or idling by waiting for the next shift.

But similar to what bradnixon said, the two biggest costs of running a bus route are labour and the cost of buying the bus (the latter is for peak periods only, as off peak they have plenty of buses available to use). Fuel is a distant third. While electric buses will save money on fuel and maintenance, the cost of deadheading will still be substantial.

For the justification to go beyond the Greenbelt, he's referring to the O-Train network. One of the major talking points is that rail is far better for the environment than smelly diesel buses, but if we have an all electric fleet, that argument is out the window.

The argument is reduced, but it doesn't go out the window. Assuming we are talking battery electric buses, the batteries have their own environmental issues. They are far better than the issues with burning diesel (or gasoline) since the battery will likely last the life of the bus and can be recycled at its end of life, but they are worse than an electric train that doesn't need batteries.

Add the fact that Barrhaven and Kanata don't have the density or ridership to support rapid transit, and the business case is non-existent.

They may not have the density or ridership to support rapid transit to your front door, but I would argue that they do have the population and ridership to support a hub and spoke system with rapid transit providing transportation from the hub. Also, for Kanata, there is also a significant amount of local employment, which if served properly, could provide a significant amount of contraflow ridership, which further helps system utilization and reduces deadheading.

Most people in the suburbs take the bus or drive to the nearest rail station, so it doesn't really matter if that station is at Fallowfield/Terry Fox vs Barrhaven Town Centre/Hazeldean.

I agree. The point is getting it past the greenbelt. Anything beyond that you run into the law of diminishing returns.

I do get how Moodie/Algonquin might be more problematic because they are not served by park-and-rides.

Not only that, but you don't want to have large park-and rides at Moodie or Algonquin as you would be encouraging people to drive across the greenbelt.

It is a tough balance, as on one hand you don't want to encourage sprawl by making it easy for people to live far from where they work, but on the other hand, for the people who do live outside the greenbelt, you want to make it easy for them to use transit, regardless where they work. That status quo makes it easy for those who work downtown, but tough for everyone else.

My last paragraph provides a partial argument for this. We'll need just about the same number of buses and drivers whether the terminus is at Fallowfield or Barrhaven Town Centre. In addition, an automated metro under Bank, Rideau-Montreal would eliminate far more buses and drivers than the suburban extensions proposed.

When comparing Fallowfield to BTC, I tend to agree (at first I though you were comparing it to Algonquin). I don't see what that has anything to do with how electric buses will reduce the cost of deadheading though.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But similar to what bradnixon said, the two biggest costs of running a bus route are labour and the cost of buying the bus (the latter is for peak periods only, as off peak they have plenty of buses available to use). Fuel is a distant third. While electric buses will save money on fuel and maintenance, the cost of deadheading will still be substantial.

Vehicle cost and labour are the highest expenses, but I don't think the fuel savings are insignificant.

The argument is reduced, but it doesn't go out the window. Assuming we are talking battery electric buses, the batteries have their own environmental issues. They are far better than the issues with burning diesel (or gasoline) since the battery will likely last the life of the bus and can be recycled at its end of life, but they are worse than an electric train that doesn't need batteries.

Very true. Trolley buses would arguably be better, but then we'd incur the cost of overhead wires.

They may not have the density or ridership to support rapid transit to your front door, but I would argue that they do have the population and ridership to support a hub and spoke system with rapid transit providing transportation from the hub. Also, for Kanata, there is also a significant amount of local employment, which if served properly, could provide a significant amount of contraflow ridership, which further helps system utilization and reduces deadheading.

For sure, I'm 100% on board with Kanata to Terry Fox, maybe even Palladium (not just for the Sens, but for potential TOD). For Barrhaven, I don't think the ridership will be significantly different if it goes to Fallowfield or BTC. Same with Hazeldean.

I agree. The point is getting it past the greenbelt. Anything beyond that you run into the law of diminishing returns.

Not only that, but you don't want to have large park-and rides at Moodie or Algonquin as you would be encouraging people to drive across the greenbelt.

It is a tough balance, as on one hand you don't want to encourage sprawl by making it easy for people to live far from where they work, but on the other hand, for the people who do live outside the greenbelt, you want to make it easy for them to use transit, regardless where they work. That status quo makes it easy for those who work downtown, but tough for everyone else.

Agreed.

When comparing Fallowfield to BTC, I tend to agree (at first I though you were comparing it to Algonquin). I don't see what that has anything to do with how electric buses will reduce the cost of deadheading though.

It's an argument that going deeper into the suburbs does not provide any more benefits than the edge of the outer Greenbelt.

All in all, it seems we agree for the most part. Extending the O-Train to the edge of the outer Greenbelt (Fallowfield), or in the case of Kanata, a little further (Terry Fox), will have just about the same benefits as extending deep into each suburb (BTC and Hazeldean) for a significantly cheaper price tag.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Vehicle cost and labour are the highest expenses, but I don't think the fuel savings are insignificant.

It really depends how you look at it. Significant savings are to be had, for sure. As a proportion of the total cost of providing service, it will be very small. Both can be true at the same time.

Very true. Trolley buses would arguably be better, but then we'd incur the cost of overhead wires.

Every technology has its pros and cons.

For sure, I'm 100% on board with Kanata to Terry Fox, maybe even Palladium (not just for the Sens, but for potential TOD).

I am not sure how much TOD potential would actually be realized by extending to Palladium. My gut tells me the best we would get is a bunch of townhomes near Campeau (and may west of Didsbury) station.

For Barrhaven, I don't think the ridership will be significantly different if it goes to Fallowfield or BTC.

As I have said before, originally I wasn't opposed to extending to BTC since I thought it wouldn't cost much and Barrhaven is constrained by the Rideau River and the 416 to only expand to the south, so an extension catches a significant proportion of the population. When I saw the $1B price tag, I changed my mind.

Same with Hazeldean.

I agree 100%. Kanata/Stittsville is expanding to the north, south and west, so an extension in any one direction will only catch a small percentage of the total population. I think the city is being dazzled by the massive growth Stittsville is seeing, but not realizing that it is just catching up to Kanata North and Kanata South (between the 2016 Census and 2019 estimate the Stittsville ward has grown by 27% from 32,494 to 41,350).

It's an argument that going deeper into the suburbs does not provide any more benefits than the edge of the outer Greenbelt.

Change "any more" to "significant" and I agree. It is just that the benefits are significantly reduced and not worth the cost. For sure put them on the "ultimate plan" (maybe we will do them one day) but not on the "affordable plan."

All in all, it seems we agree for the most part. Extending the O-Train to the edge of the outer Greenbelt (Fallowfield), or in the case of Kanata, a little further (Terry Fox), will have just about the same benefits as extending deep into each suburb (BTC and Hazeldean) for a significantly cheaper price tag.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I'm not sure the cost-benefit exists for Barrhaven LRT, but I don't agree with this argument. The majority of the cost of transit is labour. Electric buses don't change the cost of labour for the time spent deadheading.

You're right that the majority of the operating cost is labour. Which is why I didn't say that electrification made deadheading irrelevant. What I said was that rail isn't needed beyond crossing the Greenbelt. Electrification means that the returns from rail extensions in the lower density burbs are even more marginal. As such with the bulk of deadheading eliminated at the first stop crossing the Greenbelt, there isn't much justification to go beyond.

[Truenorth00]

Also, the majority of the cost isn't exactly labour. The biggest issue with deadheading is actually fleet size. The more time each bus spends out of revenue service, the larger the required fleet. This is turn drives up capital spending on the fleet and infrastructure, and operational spending on fuel, labour and maintenance. Crossing the Greenbelt eliminates a massive amount of non-revenue pax-km and shrinks demand on the bus fleet. Anything beyond that first stop is basically about improving local access to the rail network or TOD. Doesn't have much to do with network efficiency.

[Nowhere]

I found a transit ridership forecast map for 2031 made following the 2008 transportation master plan in the following PDF document.



As we can see, the ridership forecasts are considerably lower for Barrhaven than Terry Fox. Considering that the Terry Fox extension is $710M versus $1.6B for Fallowfield or $2.6B for Barrhaven Center, I agree that spending such an amount to replace a transitway that does the job doesn't seem really justified, especially considering the increasing popularity of remote working.

Unless they get a new mayor in a few days, the city of Saskatoon wants to build 2.7km of bus lanes and add transit priority to 90 traffic lights for an amount estimated between $150M and $200M. Assuming the cost of the Saskatoon project doesn't increase, this mean that, for $2.6B, we could have transit priority for 1170 traffic lights (out of about 1600) and 35km of bus lanes (using the $200M estimate). Considering the reliablity of OC Transpo, far far more people would benefit from a reliable bus network than a Barrhaven LRT.

We should rather aim to complete the missing transitway part between Algonquin and Hunt Club in the median of Woodroffe like they plan to do on Baseline.

[DarkArconio]

Not sure moving the transit-only lanes around on Woodroffe makes much sense, but I agree that there are more important BRT investments to be made in this city than this particular project:

Based on the ridership forecast above:
1. Kanata LRT
2. Baseline BRT
3. Orleans South BRT
4. Riverside south/Barrhaven BRT

Should all be implemented before this upgrade.

Of course, the counter-argument is those BRTs are affordable enough and not flashy, so likely the city will be stuck paying for them. An LRT is flashy and could change how the competitive Barrhaven ridings votes, so may be easier to get provincial and federal funds (similar story for Kanata).

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by DarkArconio

Not sure moving the transit-only lanes around on Woodroffe makes much sense, but I agree that there are more important BRT investments to be made in this city than this particular project:

Based on the ridership forecast above:
1. Kanata LRT
2. Baseline BRT
3. Orleans South BRT
4. Riverside south/Barrhaven BRT

Should all be implemented before this upgrade.

Of course, the counter-argument is those BRTs are affordable enough and not flashy, so likely the city will be stuck paying for them. An LRT is flashy and could change how the competitive Barrhaven ridings votes, so may be easier to get provincial and federal funds (similar story for Kanata).

I guess buses could go a bit faster in the median without having to deal with turning cars, but I agree that the Baseline transitway is more important considering the state of the 88.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

I found a transit ridership forecast map for 2031 made following the 2008 transportation master plan in the following PDF document.

As we can see, the ridership forecasts are considerably lower for Barrhaven than Terry Fox. Considering that the Terry Fox extension is $710M versus $1.6B for Fallowfield or $2.6B for Barrhaven Center, I agree that spending such an amount to replace a transitway that does the job doesn't seem really justified, especially considering the increasing popularity of remote working.

Unless they get a new mayor in a few days, the city of Saskatoon wants to build 2.7km of bus lanes and add transit priority to 90 traffic lights for an amount estimated between $150M and $200M. Assuming the cost of the Saskatoon project doesn't increase, this mean that, for $2.6B, we could have transit priority for 1170 traffic lights (out of about 1600) and 35km of bus lanes (using the $200M estimate). Considering the reliablity of OC Transpo, far far more people would benefit from a reliable bus network than a Barrhaven LRT.

We should rather aim to complete the missing transitway part between Algonquin and Hunt Club in the median of Woodroffe like they plan to do on Baseline.

Certainly interesting, but I don't know how much faith I would put in a "ridership forecast map" that is 12 years old and made 4 years before City Council decided to build the Confederation line.

I don't have stats for 2008 but in the 2006 Census, the South Nepean Sub-Area (which more accurately encompasses Barrhaven than the wards) had a population of 54,950 and according to the 2016 Census, it had grown by 53% to 83,997. I don't know if it was forecasted to grow at that rate or not.

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly interesting, but I don't know how much faith I would put in a "ridership forecast map" that is 12 years old and made 4 years before City Council decided to build the Confederation line.

I don't have stats for 2008 but in the 2006 Census, the South Nepean Sub-Area (which more accurately encompasses Barrhaven than the wards) had a population of 54,950 and according to the 2016 Census, it had grown by 53% to 83,997. I don't know if it was forecasted to grow at that rate or not.

I was unable to find any newer ridership forecast map, however, the Confederation Line was already there in the 2008 transportation master plan. The PDF document I linked forecasted a population of 104 300 for Barrhaven in 2031 (not including Riverside South). That's definitively underestimated, but the increase in remote working was probably also underestimated.

We should consider building the Barrhaven LRT it in a few decades, but I don't see it as a priority right now.

[OCCheetos]

Some interesting stats:

From the very first display boards presented last year
The existing transitway served 2500ppdph in the AM peak
projected to reach 4500ppdph in the AM peak by 2031

Today's presentation to the Transportation Committee notes that the projected peak ridership is expected to increase to 11,200 by 2031. Presumably.. that would be both the AM and PM peaks, but it is still significantly greater than the originally predicted ridership figures.

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Some interesting stats:

From the very first display boards presented last year
The existing transitway served 2500ppdph in the AM peak
projected to reach 4500ppdph in the AM peak by 2031

Today's presentation to the Transportation Committee notes that the projected peak ridership is expected to increase to 11,200 by 2031. Presumably.. that would be both the AM and PM peaks, but it is still significantly greater than the originally predicted ridership figures.

I wonder where they took their numbers. I have trouble believing that ridership from Barrhaven will be 4.5 times as much as now in 11 years, even if remote working doesn't become popular.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

People on this forum like to spread FUD like that. The reality is there are 23 wards and each Councillors has an equal vote in council. If you look at the ward map, there are 11 wards outside of the greenbelt (including 4 Rural wards who don't care about transit) and 12 wards inside the greenbelt, so from a voting perspective, the Councillors inside the greenbelt have the edge.

"inside the greenbelt" and "suburbs" aren't opposites. There are inside the greenbelt suburbs, and they are just as tax-averse and hostile to urban ambitions as any Barrhavenits are.