The future of Ottawa's Transit

[lrt's friend]

Of course, this idea is a pipe dream, but it will be a whole lot more effective than our current plans.

[Kitchissippi]

In stark contrast to the recent Confederation Line video, how trains used to get from Rideau to Bayview half a century ago:

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

In stark contrast to the recent Confederation Line video, how trains used to get from Rideau to Bayview half a century ago:

• Video Link

• Video Link

We need to bring this back. I don't care what it costs.

[Acajack]

That's so cool! Thanks for posting.

[lrt's friend]

Interesting seeing these film clips, which included glimpses of both the Hull and Ottawa West stations and the old Hull Electric streetcar poles still standing on the Interprovincial bridge. Lots of railway infrastructure then considered eyesores and nuisances that 50 years later would be very useful. The first clip was clearly taken in summer and not in April 1966.

[Kitchissippi]

BTW, those videos are from Dave Allston's blog, http://kitchissippimuseum.blogspot.com , there are links to more railway videos there.

[roger1818]

Thanks for posting Gat-Train! It was neat seeing the trains crossing both the Alexandra and POW bridges. So is that the route The Canadian originally used to get from Union to the Carleton Sub?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Thanks for posting Gat-Train! It was neat seeing the trains crossing both the Alexandra and POW bridges. So is that the route The Canadian originally used to get from Union to the Carleton Sub?

Yes, this was the route for CPR transcontinental trains going west until Union Station closed in July 1966 . Going east, they would have gone via Hurdman's Bridge, and then onto the track just south of Innes (where VIA trains now use a stub to turn around) then on towards Vankleek Hill and Rigaud, the ROW reserved for possible future high speed rail.

[lrt's friend]

Harder, who has chaired council’s planning committee this term, said she’ll be advocating for changes to how revenue collected from development charges is spent. Virtually all that transit-related development charge revenue from suburban growth areas has been poured into LRT, but the next development charge bylaw in 2019 should earmark a portion of the revenue for community transit improvements where the developments happen, she said.
“I think where we err in general as a city is using the same policy for everywhere to maybe make it easier from an operations perspective, but it doesn’t serve the community well,” Harder said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...le-with-unreliable-service-stuffed-buses

This confirms my comment from earlier this month that arose from an informal conversation.

How is this going to resolve our transit problems if we starve transit funding in growth areas to redirect most of this money to LRT being built in other parts of the city? Also, how do we gain ridership, if our neighbourhood bus system is not being funded properly?

We are now starving the bus system where it is needed the most and it demonstrates the hypocrisy of spending most of our money where ridership is 'currently' the highest.

Specifically, I go to Barrhaven, and I see large sectors of the community not served by all day bus routes. Is this good way to build our city?

Many answer these questions saying there will be reliability improvements because of LRT but this does not address capacity problems. It also does not provide any solution as we continue to direct development charges to fund LRT that does not resolve the last mile problem that 90% of potential transit riders face, particularly in those growth areas, whether it is south Orleans, Stittsville, Findlay Creek, Riverside South, Kanata North or Barrhaven.

This problem appears to be increasing and the article points out that no real solutions are coming soon. We have had a councillor defeated at least partially over this issue and now it has become a front page news story. And there is no solution coming for years, with the city having to pay for more LRT construction detours soon after Phase 1 is completed.

To save money, we are stressing our transit system and most riders for many years. It may have costed more, but LRT should have entered downtown on a slightly different route that did not block those critical sections of the Transitway. I know this statement is controversial, but would we do the same thing with the Queensway? Definitely not.

[Edit: When I said, 'to save money', I was referring to choosing the most inexpensive route for LRT through the downtown area that required the closure of the Transitways into downtown during construction]

[McC]

Development charges are one-time revenues, they shouldn't be used for transit operations (like all day bus service to community X), because they are not a sustainable, ongoing source of funds. Dedicating that money into capital investments that have long-term operating cost savings (like the O-Train) is exactly where the City should be spending one-time revenues. Insufficient operating funding for bus services is a distinct issue, even if you believe that they are both symptoms of one larger problem/attitude/philosophy/conspiracy at the City (YMMV).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McC

Development charges are one-time revenues, they shouldn't be used for transit operations (like all day bus service to community X), because they are not a sustainable, ongoing source of funds. Dedicating that money into capital investments that have long-term operating cost savings (like the O-Train) is exactly where the City should be spending one-time revenues. Insufficient operating funding for bus services is a distinct issue, even if you believe that they are both symptoms of one larger problem/attitude/philosophy/conspiracy at the City (YMMV).

This one-time funding is supposed to kick start transit service to get us through the time that it takes to build ridership to a reasonable level. It may also fund the purchase of additional buses to extend service or increase service as needed. Also, LRT detours have necessitated the redirection of service that might otherwise be provided in local neighbourhoods.

We can also see poor choices in our capital spending when we build Park n Ride lots where there is very little transit service. We have built 3 Park n Ride lots on the old N-S route, and only one of those will be connected to LRT in our TMP. Is this where our development charges are going?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

We need to bring this back. I don't care what it costs.

Why?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...le-with-unreliable-service-stuffed-buses

This confirms my comment from earlier this month that arose from an informal conversation.

How is this going to resolve our transit problems if we starve transit funding in growth areas to redirect most of this money to LRT being built in other parts of the city?

Consider this the suburban sprawl tax. The reason we need LRT to the burbs is because so many people commute from there. I consider it fair that they pay to build it up. The city's only mistake is not charging them even more to fund the buses we have to buy to service these low density hoods.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It may have costed more, but LRT should have entered downtown on a slightly different route that did not block those critical sections of the Transitway. I know this statement is controversial, but would we do the same thing with the Queensway? Definitely not.

Why should downtown have to choke on buses to support suburban growth?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Consider this the suburban sprawl tax. The reason we need LRT to the burbs is because so many people commute from there. I consider it fair that they pay to build it up. The city's only mistake is not charging them even more to fund the buses we have to buy to service these low density hoods.




Why should downtown have to choke on buses to support suburban growth?

Aren't there provincial restrictions on this? Someone told me that transit levies on development charges are restricted to fund only a modest level of transit in new neighbourhoods. I doubt that the current Ford government would favour additional levies that would increase new house prices.

My latter comment was not about maintaining dozens of bus routes through downtown, but to allow a much easier transition to LRT. Yeah, a few routes would likely run on the old Transitway even after LRT opened, but every suburban route would still be moved to LRT and LRT would still run through a downtown tunnel.

I would like to know the full costs of diverting buses during the construction period including the costs of expanding the Queensway to accommodate the bus detours. I find it a little perverse that we are using transit funding to widen roads.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Aren't there provincial restrictions on this? Someone told me that transit levies on development charges are restricted to fund only a modest level of transit in new neighbourhoods. I doubt that the current Ford government would favour additional levies that would increase new house prices.

Indeed. And that is a huge part of the problem that many cities in Ontario have. Sprawl is artificially cheap for developers and expensive for existing ratepayers.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My latter comment was not about maintaining dozens of bus routes through downtown, but to allow a much easier transition to LRT. Yeah, a few routes would likely run on the old Transitway even after LRT opened, but every suburban route would still be moved to LRT and LRT would still run through a downtown tunnel.

The old Transitway just isn't needed after the LRT opens. All bus traffic in the core will be local. And that's a good thing. Why should downtown still be choking on buses after we've build a multi-billion dollar LRT that is largely focused on commuting suburbanites?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would like to know the full costs of diverting buses during the construction period including the costs of expanding the Queensway to accommodate the bus detours. I find it a little perverse that we are using transit funding to widen roads.

Remember, under the Wynne government, there was also an effort to build HOV and HOT lanes on expressways. Those lanes aren't going to waste.

Diversion costs should come out once they're done squabbling with RTG.

[TransitZilla]

This project is a good example of why I think it makes no sense that the Kanata North Transitway is planned to use March Rd to bypass Beaverbrook.

Teron Rd is where the residents are, and there is more potential for midrise infill like this one. That's where the transit should continue to be. I think there are opportunities for transit priority along the Teron Rd corridor, and the city should be exploring those.

Probably the wrong thread to discuss this, but while I see where you are coming from, I am not convinced. Having the busway on Teron would slow down the buses going to South March (which includes the Kanata North Business Park) with all the extra stops that would result.

Besides, Beaverbrook is a post war, 20th century, car dependant suburb. The only density on it currently is within a short walk of the proposed, stage 3 Eagleson station and this new development will be near the intersection of Teron and March Rd, which presumably will have a busway station.

By all means have buses run along Teron, but I don't see the benefit of relocating the busway to it.

Moving this over from the 1131-1151 Teron thread.

I just don't see how you could run a frequent enough service on Teron Rd if there is a parallel BRT on March Rd.

There are ways to speed up buses along the Teron corridor.
I don't think the March Rd route would save that much time, and for the ridership lost, I don't think it would be worth it.

My ideal Kanata North BRT implementation plan would be:

1. Widen March Rd between Carling and Teron for bus lanes.
2. Add dedicated left turn lanes at each end of Teron Rd.
3. Remove bus bays along Teron and consolidate some stops

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Moving this over from the 1131-1151 Teron thread.

I just don't see how you could run a frequent enough service on Teron Rd if there is a parallel BRT on March Rd.

I guess it depends on your definition of "frequent enough service," considering how low the population density is in the middle. I don't see any reason the 168 couldn't continue running as is. A local, all day variation of the 265 could also be created. The reality is, most of the population is at the ends of the street, where there would be bus stations on the busway anyway.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

There are ways to speed up buses along the Teron corridor.
I don't think the March Rd route would save that much time, and for the ridership lost, I don't think it would be worth it.

Teron currently has a speed limit of 50 km/h and I can see Beaverbrook becoming a community safety zone and having its speed limit reduced to 40 km/h. Also, Teron currently has 7 intermediary stops between Teron Station and March/Teron exclusive. Good luck reducing that to a reasonable number for a busway.

As a comparison, March Rd has a speed limit of 80 km/h and there likely wouldn't be any stops between Teron Station (or the future Eagleson train station) and a March/Teron Bus Station (a distance of about 2km, which is only slightly more than the 1.5 km between Tunnies Pasture and Westboro. That is a reasonable station spacing for a busway IMHO.

A busway on March Rd also has the advantage of allowing some buses to branch off onto Herzberg Rd efficiently to service the eastern edge of the business park.

If I had to guess, your route would add about 5 minutes to the route in peak periods just to save a few dozen people a day from waiting for the local bus or walking a few hundred meters to one of the busway stations at either end.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

My ideal Kanata North BRT implementation plan would be:

1. Widen March Rd between Carling and Teron for bus lanes.
2. Add dedicated left turn lanes at each end of Teron Rd.
3. Remove bus bays along Teron and consolidate some stops

Even if you got rid of over half of the stops, and reduced it to 3 intermediary stops, they would still be less than 600m apart. That seems way to close for a suburban busway IMHO.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I guess it depends on your definition of "frequent enough service," considering how low the population density is in the middle. I don't see any reason the 168 couldn't continue running as is. A local, all day variation of the 265 could also be created. The reality is, most of the population is at the ends of the street, where there would be bus stations on the busway anyway.



Teron currently has a speed limit of 50 km/h and I can see Beaverbrook becoming a community safety zone and having its speed limit reduced to 40 km/h. Also, Teron currently has 7 intermediary stops between Teron Station and March/Teron exclusive. Good luck reducing that to a reasonable number for a busway.

As a comparison, March Rd has a speed limit of 80 km/h and there likely wouldn't be any stops between Teron Station (or the future Eagleson train station) and a March/Teron Bus Station (a distance of about 2km, which is only slightly more than the 1.5 km between Tunnies Pasture and Westboro. That is a reasonable station spacing for a busway IMHO.

A busway on March Rd also has the advantage of allowing some buses to branch off onto Herzberg Rd efficiently to service the eastern edge of the business park.

If I had to guess, your route would add about 5 minutes to the route in peak periods just to save a few dozen people a day from waiting for the local bus or walking a few hundred meters to one of the busway stations at either end.



Even if you got rid of over half of the stops, and reduced it to 3 intermediary stops, they would still be less than 600m apart. That seems way to close for a suburban busway IMHO.

You say the Teron route would add 5 minutes, but right now the end-to-end time on Teron is less than 5 minutes. E.g. route 63 Briarbrook:

Teron 1A 8:13
March/Teron 8:17

I think you could shave a minute or so off this time by consolidating stops (say from 7 to 5), removing bus bays and adding dedicated left-turn lanes for buses at each end of Teron.

So the route along March might save a couple of minutes at most, while making the service inaccessible to the adjacent residents since there would be no stops between March/Eagleson and March/Teron. (Which would make sense since it is Greenbelt on one side and low density residential on the other).

Whenever I've taken a 63 or 64 at peak (in either direction) there seems to be lots of people boarding or alighting along Teron. I think you're minimizing the density and the potential. So then what costs are saved by the faster routing on March are cancelled out by the need to run local service, at worse frequency.

I just don't see the benefit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

You say the Teron route would add 5 minutes, but right now the end-to-end time on Teron is less than 5 minutes. E.g. route 63 Briarbrook:

Teron 1A 8:13
March/Teron 8:17

I think you could shave a minute or so off this time by consolidating stops (say from 7 to 5), removing bus bays and adding dedicated left-turn lanes for buses at each end of Teron.

That schedule seems tight when you consider Google says it take 4 minutes to drive that same route. If consider each stop likely adds at least 30 seconds to the trip (to slow the bus to a stop, wait for the passengers and start again), your proposed 5 stops would easily add another 2.5 minutes. Besides 5 intermediary stops (plus the ones at either end) on a 1.8 km street means a stop spacing of only 300 meters, which is extremely close for a busway.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Whenever I've taken a 63 or 64 at peak (in either direction) there seems to be lots of people boarding or alighting along Teron. I think you're minimizing the density and the potential. So then what costs are saved by the faster routing on March are cancelled out by the need to run local service, at worse frequency.

I am curious if any particular stops are in particularly high demand or is it evenly distributed along all 7 stops?

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I just don't see the benefit.

Where as, I don't see the benefit of detouring to Teron.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Where as, I don't see the benefit of detouring to Teron.

Well, Teron is the status quo. There will be a cost to building a BRT on March between the 417 and Teron.