The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, Ottawa's approach is almost all about low-hanging fruit. And always has been.

The Transitway, Trillium line and Confederation line all ran or run primarily through old rail corridors, greenspace or highway rights-of-way/medians.

It's never so much been about implanting transit where most people live, as much as putting transit where it fits most easily and cheaply into the urban geography.

Population density be damned.

Originally Posted by wave46

There comes the crux of the argument with public transit.

Cost versus benefit. Do I build a cheaper, broader network that reaches out into the suburbs and makes transit nodes a thing father out? Or do I focus more money on the core?

In 40 years this expansion of Confederation Line may be what the TTC subway was in the 1970s. North York Centre was closer to the edge of the city than anything. Suburban paradise. Now look at it.

Which is better is a hard argument. My thinking is that RT should be used to move the most amount of people throughout the coverage area. They are doing that with Phases 1-3. I can see a Phase 4 find another route through downtown, via another main thoroughfare. Or, they might do what some cities do and create a transit mall and run the LRTs on it.

I always think that the government should always look for the low hanging fruit. It won't please everyone, but it will still be much better than status quo. Go back 10-20 years ago and ask what should be an LRT in Ottawa. I'd bet most would think the Transitways should be first.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Very cool.

I understand the name Kichi Sibi (probably Native) but Corso Italia? Sounds weird.

Kichi Sibi means Great River in Algonquin and was the name given to the Ottawa by the First Nations. The anglicized Kitchissippi is currently used to identify the urban west end City Ward and a lookout on the river near the station.

Corso Italia is the ceremonial name of Preston, which is the main drag in Ottawa's Little Italy. That name was not as well received, but was approved nonetheless it seems, as were many other station names that were criticized (Sherbourne, New Orchard, Montreal, Mooney's Bay).

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by wave46

In 40 years this expansion of Confederation Line may be what the TTC subway was in the 1970s. North York Centre was closer to the edge of the city than anything. Suburban paradise. Now look at it.

The problem with the line is less that it goes too far out into the suburbs, but that its stations and alignments are poorly placed. North York Centre is a good example of an 'urbanizable' location thanks to its existing, unbroken urban fabric and grid. Ottawa's LRT has very, very few of these. It's mostly stations shoehorned between highway on-ramps and broken street networks.

I mean, look at this render of Montreal Road Station, meant to make it look like an attractive place to walk to or live by. Even if you wanted to, it's located in a cloverleaf interchange. The closest lot you could develop is 500 metres away along a 70 km/h road on anemic sidewalks. And this isn't even the worst station in this regard.





The cruel irony is that the line with the most urbanizable stations (Line 2) is being re-built on a single track without the capacity to actually transport the development it could attract.

I don't think that LRT will be a failure. I think it will transport lots of people very efficiently. But it breaks my heart at the sheer scale of the failure to put stations in locations which could one day become North York Centres. Ottawa is a silently cautionary tale about how, much like war and generals, transportation projects are too important to be left to transportation engineers...

[Aylmer]

My quick breakdown of station urbanizability in Stage 2:

Easily urbanizable: 4
Stations with unbroken urban fabric on all sides extending roughly a 10 minutes' walk, a connecting street grid, and which are in developable zones.

• Algonquin
• Corso Italia
• Westboro
• Limebank

Urbanizable or partially urbanizable: 4
Stations with unbroken fabric in only one or two directions

• Kitchi Sibi
• Sherbourne
• New Orchard
• South Keys

Partially urbanizable only with significant change: 16
-Stations which require significant new infrastructure (like pedestrian bridges or interchange reconfigurations) to partially overcome the breaks in the urban fabric to access the station
-Stations which are located in protected environmental zones where development is not possible
-Stations located by environmental nuisances which severely impact what development can occur

• Queensview (highway and broken grid)
• Bayshore (highway and other unwalkable roads, and broken grid)
• Iris (broken grid)
• Place d'Orléans (highway interchange other unwalkable roads)
• Trim (highway and other unwalkable roads)
• Walkley (highway interchange and other unwalkable roads)
• Leitrim (greenbelt)
• Bowesville (greenbelt)
• Lincoln Fields (highway interchange and other unwalkable roads)
• Moodie (highway interchange and greenbelt)
• Pinecrest (highway interchange and other unwalkable roads)
• EY Centre (airport zone restrictions)
• Airport (airport zone restrictions)
• Montreal Road (highway interchange and greenbelt and broken grid)
• Jeanne d'Arc (highway interchange and other unwalkable roads and broken grid)
• Covent Glen (highway and broken grid)

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by ue

All fair points, Chad!

I forgot about the Green Line routing through the Beltline. Although, according to the maps, there's still nothing that actually goes down to 17th, which is annoying. The station at 1 St SE and 11th is located where some existing density is, but misses a potential transfer point with the existing Vic Park station. The second station is in a no-man's land and is clearly meant to be a gentrifier.

For me, and yes I am sure this'd be more expensive, I'd say a better routing would be to just continue straight down 2nd until 17th. Have a station at 11th to act in place of the 11th and 1st SE station, then another at 17th and 2nd. It is still removed from the main drag of 17th, but at least is a short walking distance and could provide potential transfer to a future streetcar or LRT or BRT going down 17 Ave. From there it could bend east and have a transfer point with Victoria Park, then tunnel eastwards and essentially meet up with the already proposed Inglewood station.

But that is a good catch about Inglewood getting C-Train access, too, thanks.

Re: Bridgeland -- for me I think of the main commercial strips of Bridgeland as being Edmonton Trail and 4 St NE, as well as 1 Ave NE. I tend to think of these (especially 1 Ave NE) as the "heart" of the community as a result. The C-Train station isn't right by these. Luckily, it's only a few blocks from 1st Ave, though Edmonton Tr is much further. It's not the worst situation, just imperfect I guess.

Re: Oliver -- yes, the Valley Line extension will go through it, but going through Jasper Ave would've made far more sense.

There will never be an LRT on 17 Avenue, that is just reality. No city would pay another billion dollars just to add a kilometer of superfluous tunnel south that then has to immediately loop back north. Regardless, 17 Avenue is not where the population density of the Beltline is concentrated, it is where the retail is concentrated. Out of the Beltline's 30,000 people, a good ~20,000 of them live within a 5 to 10 minute walk of the stations (according to Google Maps walking speed), with the rest living 11 to 15 minutes away. They are well-serviced.

Also, as in the post you quoted, 1 Ave NE is mentioned and is within 450 meters ("right by") the station, and also as I said, 9 Street NE has 4 buildings under construction right now, including two blocks of retail which will better connect the 1 Ave NE retail "heart" to the station. Edmonton Trail is a non-starter.

The best we can hope for in the verrry long term is a tram loop along 17 to Macleod Trail connecting to Edmonton Trail either over the 5 Avenue Flyover or the Reconciliation Bridge, turning onto 16 Avenue TransCanada to 14 Street back to 17 Ave. That would be essentially perfect and connect the nearly the entire inner city. The orange line on the map below describes the routing.





With the Valley Line, Jasper definitely would have made more sense. It would have encouraged more pedestrian-friendly development along the stretch, and wouldn't require an unnecessary turn from Jasper to 104 in the dead centre of downtown, makes no sense except I guess for the Ice District.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There will never be an LRT on 17 Avenue, that is just reality. No city would pay another billion dollars just to add a kilometer of superfluous tunnel south that then has to immediately loop back north.

Also, as in the post you quoted, 1 Ave NE is mentioned and is within 450 meters ("right by") the station, and also as I said, 9 Street NE has 4 buildings under construction right now, including two blocks of retail which will better connect the 1 Ave NE retail "heart" to the station. Edmonton Trail is a non-starter.

The best we can hope for in the verrry long term is a tram loop along 17 to Macleod Trail connecting to Edmonton Trail either over the 5 Avenue Flyover or the Reconciliation Bridge, turning onto 16 Avenue TransCanada to 14 Street back to 17 Ave. That would be essentially perfect and connect the nearly the entire inner city.

With the Valley Line, Jasper definitely would have made more sense. It would have encouraged more pedestrian-friendly development along the stretch, and wouldn't require an unnecessary turn from Jasper to 104 in the dead centre of downtown, makes no sense except I guess for the Ice District.

I don't want to get into anything here, but your tone here is kind of off-putting, so I'd rather let this topic rest.

[hipster duck]

Ottawa looks like it's bad at TOD and placing stations in urban areas, but I wonder how much of that is a hangover of BRT-oriented planning being shoehorned into a new LRT reality.

In general, buses are worse at attracting nearby high density, walkable development. Some of that is people's rail bias, some of that is the fact that a high capacity busway kind of resembles a highway in design (often using actual highways on their route) and is therefore less attractive to situate high density residential next to, and some of that might be because a bus using a busway doesn't force people to transfer to another mode for their last mile (the bus can just exit the busway and travel on city streets to its destination), so it's not as important to concentrate people/jobs within walking distance of a transit station.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There will never be an LRT on 17 Avenue, that is just reality. No city would pay another billion dollars just to add a kilometer of superfluous tunnel south that then has to immediately loop back north. Regardless, 17 Avenue is not where the population density of the Beltline is concentrated, it is where the retail is concentrated. Out of the Beltline's 30,000 people, a good ~20,000 of them live within a 5 to 10 minute walk of the stations (according to Google Maps walking speed), with the rest living 11 to 15 minutes away. They are well-serviced.

I always thought if a 17 Ave S LRT were to be built, it would be in the context of linking Purple line and the Westbrook - MRU RT connection (which actually now tops the long-term priority list). But that's just me.

[ue]

Originally Posted by foolworm

I always thought if a 17 Ave S LRT were to be built, it would be in the context of linking Purple line and the Westbrook - MRU RT connection (which actually now tops the long-term priority list). But that's just me.

Could also go up MacLeod and then turn down 9th Ave through Inglewood and onto 17 Ave SE and Forest Lawn, just rework the BRT service.

[ue]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Ottawa looks like it's bad at TOD and placing stations in urban areas, but I wonder how much of that is a hangover of BRT-oriented planning being shoehorned into a new LRT reality.

In general, buses are worse at attracting nearby high density, walkable development. Some of that is people's rail bias, some of that is the fact that a high capacity busway kind of resembles a highway in design (often using actual highways on their route) and is therefore less attractive to situate high density residential next to, and some of that might be because a bus using a busway doesn't force people to transfer to another mode for their last mile (the bus can just exit the busway and travel on city streets to its destination), so it's not as important to concentrate people/jobs within walking distance of a transit station.

Tell that to Winnipeg. The city really seems to think just ignoring the notion of LRT and going hard on BRT is enough, even if the BRT that already exists is horrible. The feeling is that buses themselves will spur TOD development, but I'm not buying it, except in coincidental circumstances (eg towers popping up in areas already prime for densification that happen to be by a BRT station).

[Innsertnamehere]

Ottawa went for a “cheap system buildout” - creating as many km of line for as little money as possible. This means it’s going to have a ridiculous size metro system for a city it’s size, but it runs in less ideal locations.

Honestly, I’m fine with it. Ottawa could have put these stops in “prime” locations but it would have needed a lot more tunnelling and it would have cost a whole lot more. REM will be similar. You get a whole lot more bang for your buck by running in surface corridors, even if it results in some sub-prime station locations.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by ue

Tell that to Winnipeg. The city really seems to think just ignoring the notion of LRT and going hard on BRT is enough, even if the BRT that already exists is horrible. The feeling is that buses themselves will spur TOD development, but I'm not buying it, except in coincidental circumstances (eg towers popping up in areas already prime for densification that happen to be by a BRT station).

This is the issue really: You're not buying it, they are, and as other posters have noted they don't exactly have cash to burn.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ottawa went for a “cheap system buildout” - creating as many km of line for as little money as possible. This means it’s going to have a ridiculous size metro system for a city it’s size, but it runs in less ideal locations.

Honestly, I’m fine with it. Ottawa could have put these stops in “prime” locations but it would have needed a lot more tunnelling and it would have cost a whole lot more. REM will be similar. You get a whole lot more bang for your buck by running in surface corridors, even if it results in some sub-prime station locations.

That's true for the REM's West Island and South Shore branches, but the majority of its track runs along a 100-year-old commuter railway that has a lot of potential for organic densification (assuming there isn't too much NIMBYism).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ottawa went for a “cheap system buildout” - creating as many km of line for as little money as possible. This means it’s going to have a ridiculous size metro system for a city it’s size, but it runs in less ideal locations.

Honestly, I’m fine with it. Ottawa could have put these stops in “prime” locations but it would have needed a lot more tunnelling and it would have cost a whole lot more. REM will be similar. You get a whole lot more bang for your buck by running in surface corridors, even if it results in some sub-prime station locations.

The O-Train does, and will post Stage 2, hit quite a few important destinations such as major employment areas (Downtown, Tunney's Confederation Heights) the three main regional malls (Bayshore, Rideau and St-Laurent) two largest Universities (Carleton and uOttawa), the largest college and a secondary campus of the number two college (Algonquin and Trades campus of La Cité), and a few vibrant urban neighbourhoods (Little Italy/Dow's Lake, Hintonburgh, Westboro, ByWard Market). LeBreton and Bayview represent a huge redevelopment oppurtunity.

What the system lacks is service to the densest areas and areas with mixed-incomes (Centretown, Glebe, Lowertown, Vanier), along with the main campus of the Francophone college (La Cité). The primary care hospitals are also completely omitted. This will be partially resolved with the Civic moving to Dow's Lake.

[Metro-One]

Sorry to interrupt the negatively on this thread (lots of things said that are highly exaggerated or just plain false) but don’t want to waste my time replying to it all, so here is something interesting!

Detailed designs for the Broadway Subway stations:

Originally Posted by vango

Station Design Advisory Process Open House

https://broadwaysubwayproject.civilspace.io/en

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Sorry to interrupt the negatively on this thread (lots of things said that are highly exaggerated or just plain false) but don’t want to waste my time replying to it all, so here is something interesting!

Detailed designs for the Broadway Subway stations:

I didn't think is was overly negative....

Nice! The Broadway Subway video starts with an image of Ottawa's Lyon Station. Because it's the same architect.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ue

Tell that to Winnipeg. The city really seems to think just ignoring the notion of LRT and going hard on BRT is enough, even if the BRT that already exists is horrible. The feeling is that buses themselves will spur TOD development, but I'm not buying it, except in coincidental circumstances (eg towers popping up in areas already prime for densification that happen to be by a BRT station).

The city is doing what makes sense. LRT is a huge cost, especially when there is no clear demand. By doing BRT, they are copying Ottawa's success. Expect 10-30 years from now that parts will be shut down and converted.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The O-Train does, and will post Stage 2, hit quite a few important destinations such as major employment areas (Downtown, Tunney's Confederation Heights) the three main regional malls (Bayshore, Rideau and St-Laurent) two largest Universities (Carleton and uOttawa), the largest college and a secondary campus of the number two college (Algonquin and Trades campus of La Cité), and a few vibrant urban neighbourhoods (Little Italy/Dow's Lake, Hintonburgh, Westboro, ByWard Market). LeBreton and Bayview represent a huge redevelopment oppurtunity.

What the system lacks is service to the densest areas and areas with mixed-incomes (Centretown, Glebe, Lowertown, Vanier), along with the main campus of the Francophone college (La Cité). The primary care hospitals are also completely omitted. This will be partially resolved with the Civic moving to Dow's Lake.

Look at Toronto and how much is not near the subways. What is the difference?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The O-Train does, and will post Stage 2, hit quite a few important destinations such as major employment areas (Downtown, Tunney's Confederation Heights) the three main regional malls (Bayshore, Rideau and St-Laurent) two largest Universities (Carleton and uOttawa), the largest college and a secondary campus of the number two college (Algonquin and Trades campus of La Cité), and a few vibrant urban neighbourhoods (Little Italy/Dow's Lake, Hintonburgh, Westboro, ByWard Market). LeBreton and Bayview represent a huge redevelopment oppurtunity.

What the system lacks is service to the densest areas and areas with mixed-incomes (Centretown, Glebe, Lowertown, Vanier), along with the main campus of the Francophone college (La Cité). The primary care hospitals are also completely omitted. This will be partially resolved with the Civic moving to Dow's Lake.

Yes, it's far from a bad system. Inner City neighbourhoods like Westboro though are served, but barely. Most of the neighbourhood is quite a long walk from the station.

The downtown tunnel has great coverage, but that's because they spent the money there to make it so.

An example of how it could have been "better" for intensification is if they had run the Trillium line down Bank Street in a tunnel between downtown and Carleton, perhaps. Instead it runs to the west of downtown and forces a transfer, and one of the densest neighbourhoods in the province is left using buses. Would the cost of doing that have been worth it though? probably not.

I think of Toronto and the Spadina line though too, which went for the "low cost" route. It hits several key destinations like Yorkdale mall, but has always been relatively low density as until it's most recent extension never really had major intensification areas around it to drive walk-up ridership. There finally is significant amounts of intensification occurring around a few stations, but even that is relatively limited.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Look at Toronto and how much is not near the subways. What is the difference?

I wasn't comparing, just pointing out what our system serves and doesn't serve.

But if we want to compare, as per Aylmer's point on the fourth post of this page, Ottawa's system follows the highway and/or serves protected greenspace so the opportunities for good, urban TOD is limited. Toronto's subway (and the Montreal Metro for that matter) mostly follows the urban grid. Not only does it serve existing walkable urban areas, but provides plenty of TOD opportunities.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

An example of how it could have been "better" for intensification is if they had run the Trillium line down Bank Street in a tunnel between downtown and Carleton, perhaps. Instead it runs to the west of downtown and forces a transfer, and one of the densest neighbourhoods in the province is left using buses. Would the cost of doing that have been worth it though? probably not.

I think a lot of people forget how cheap the Trillium Line was when they built it. It was initially a pilot project costing $21 million. The political reality is that it was never a choice between its present alignment and Bank St.

The lesson, though, is that decisions we make now that may seem like cheap low hanging fruit may end up being decisions we have to live with for the rest of our lives. It's something that should be considered when they initially make the decision.