Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Thankfully, none of these insanely expensive ideas will ever get past this forum.

But I do hope our planners get around to using LRT more. Not in the Confederation Line light metro sense. But more like what Toronto is doing on Finch and Eglinton. Those projects are real bang for buck. And so much more appropriate for a lot of corridors in Ottawa, most of which will never need the 10 000 pphpd that automatically comes from an exclusive fully segregated right of way.

I'll just leave this here.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No one is advocating a heavy rail subway of 30k phpd. We're presenting Canada Line as an example of what would be feasible for Bank, wit a max capacity of 15k phpd. Both corridors have a lot in common (denser urban core, mid-century suburban stretch, airport, modern suburb). Canada Line might serve more people, Bank has a major sports and entertainment complex.

Canada Line's initial capacity when built in 2010 was 6,100 phpd. In 2016, it carried 5,500 phpd. Capacity has just recently been increased to 8,000 phpd.

No one would argue Canada Line was overbuilt. In fact, many argue its underbuilt. Everyone agrees that an initial proposal for surface LRT would not have been adequate.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/shor...aring-capacity

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/cana...uency-skytrain

As for capacity on Trillium, it's only 1,300 phpd, set to increase to 2,500 phpd. I anticipate that capacity will be eaten-up in no time once Stage 2 opens. Best case scenario to increase capacity further without shutting down the line, which would mean double tracking everything but the Dow's Lake tunnel and Rideau River Bridge, would be 6 to 8 minute frequencies, so 5,000 to 3,750 phpd. At that point, transfers at Bayview become problematic.

EDIT: for comparison, Confederation Line has a max capacity of 24,000 phpd and currently (pre-Covid) of 10,000 phpd or so. And that as the spine of the system. Expo Line operates with a capacity of approximately 15,000 pphpd, while the Millennium Line operates with roughly 5,000 pphpd.

And Eglington Crosstown was ridiculously expensive. See page 100 of this presentation posted by O-Train Fans.

https://www.railfans.ca/news/city-ho...red-proponents

Nearly double Stage 1 of the Confederation Line. About three times the REM and Stage 2. That Frankenstein line of a hybrid subway/streetcar is an overpriced mess. An elevated light-metro would likely have been cheaper, yet provide more capacity and reliability. I would never look at Toronto as an example of what to do, with massive underutilized suburban subway stations and modern streetcars along what will be one of its most important rapid transit lines.

The Scarborough subway is another example of bad planning. They could have extended Crosstown or used the existing SRT corridor. Instead, they'll build an ultra expensive underground heavy rail subway extension.

The most expensive part of a subway is the stations, not the tunnel itself. Ottawa's 6.2 km combined sewage tunnel was only $232 million. Smaller diameter than a subway of course, but it goes to show. Underground stations of the Confederation Line were around $40-50 million (as quoted by the Mayor when a debate was raised on adding a third station in the CBD). Stations of the Vaughan extension we're well over $100 million.

We can look at Canada Line, which only cost $2.045 Billion for 19.2 km and 16 stations vs the Vaughan extension which came to $3.2 Billion for 8.6 kilometers and 8 stations.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It is going to be really interesting to see how transit demand changes going forward.

A lot of the government and tech offices are starting to canvas lessons learned from Covid and evolve their workflows going forward for more remote work.

This is going to substantially change demand. Most notably peak demand. And possibly even some directionality as more remote co-working spaces are set up.

I think the transit system in Ottawa might finally evolve to one focusing more on mobility across the city, then one focused on moving commuters. And hopefully with that we'll get a more Europeanesque system that is much more pedestrian centric.

I agree with that, but the cynic in me can't help but feel like a majority of the city's voters now view public transit as a waste of money that "nobody uses" and that major cuts should be brought in. The city is dangerously deep in car-dependence and no amount of detailed analysis or argument is going to stop any person from saying something like "but the bus that drove by my suburban house looked empty".

The election next year is going to be quite interesting and I can only imagine that the rhetoric will be wild.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And Eglington Crosstown was ridiculously expensive. See page 100 of this presentation posted by O-Train Fans.

https://www.railfans.ca/news/city-ho...red-proponents

Nearly double Stage 1 of the Confederation Line. About three times the REM and Stage 2. That Frankenstein line of a hybrid subway/streetcar is an overpriced mess. An elevated light-metro would likely have been cheaper, yet provide more capacity and reliability. I would never look at Toronto as an example of what to do, with massive underutilized suburban subway stations and modern streetcars along what will be one of its most important rapid transit lines.

Would an elevated light metro be better than an at-grade LRT line, which the Eglinton Crosstown is (partially)?

For the foreseeable future, Ottawa doesn't really have many candidates for fully-grade separated transit lines (on "new" corridors).

[Bread_Kaczynski]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

If we build a LRT along Bank south of Billings, we're going to end up with 3 rapid transit lines side by side, so I don't see the point.

Well then I guess New York City, London and Paris are doing transit wrong

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Would an elevated light metro be better than an at-grade LRT line, which the Eglinton Crosstown is (partially)?

For the foreseeable future, Ottawa doesn't really have many candidates for fully-grade separated transit lines (on "new" corridors).

I am of the opinion that Eglington Crosstown should have been as fully elevated line (or as much as possible) instead of the weird subway/streetcar configuration it is now. I'm a big advocate of the Vancouver model of building right-sized rapid transit lines using the cheapest possible method where appropriate (underground/trench/elevated/surface), similar to what've been doing in Ottawa with the O-Train.

Not to say that Vancouver is perfect. Canada Line may have been underbuilt. Cut-and-cover might have been overly disruptive to businesses on Cambie. However, they are far more efficient with public funds than Toronto/Metrolinx urban transit projects.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Nearly double Stage 1 of the Confederation Line.

Eglinton Crosstown: 19 km (10 km underground), 25 stations/stops (14 underground)

Confederation Line Stage 1: 12.5 km (2km underground), 13 stations (3 underground)

It's ridiculously intellectually dishonest to say that Eglinton came in at double Stage 1 and ignore how much more was built in Toronto. But that's par for the course in this forum I guess.....

Originally Posted by J.OT13

About three times the REM and Stage 2.

Aside from that 3x estimate being wrong, all this shows is how much cheaper it is not to tunnel. But that's the preferred solution in this forum to everything.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That Frankenstein line of a hybrid subway/streetcar is an overpriced mess. An elevated light-metro would likely have been cheaper, yet provide more capacity and reliability.

An elevated light metro would have been shorter and served far less people. Your exact criticism of the Scarborough Subway below. The hybrid concept also allows through running when Eglinton East and West are eventually built. It allows the TTC to eliminate parallel bus service that is required for subway lines. But I don't expect residents of a car dependent city to really understand the importance of right sizing stop spacing on a medium density corridor....

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would never look at Toronto as an example of what to do,

Yes. Ottawa is perfect and needs no lessons from elsewhere. We'll just keep building nothing but the most expensive solution to everything, stick the poors in buses that run every 30 mins and push car dependency on the rest.

This is a ridiculously laughable comment. Out of the two cities, there's only one where you can actually live without a car. And that's not Ottawa.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I agree with that, but the cynic in me can't help but feel like a majority of the city's voters now view public transit as a waste of money that "nobody uses" and that major cuts should be brought in. The city is dangerously deep in car-dependence and no amount of detailed analysis or argument is going to stop any person from saying something like "but the bus that drove by my suburban house looked empty".

Likely. It sucks. And suburban growth is only going to make this worse and worse as those suburban councillors just vote against any transit measures that would slow down cars or bolster the level of service.

I was listening to a Strong Towns podcast interview of Jason Slaughter (of Not Just Bikes). And he discussed why he left Toronto for Amsterdam. He said a year after moving back to Toronto from Europe, he'd just had enough. Because he realized that no amount of advocacy would get actually substantive change in his lifetime and life was too short to waste on advocacy. He suggested that Canadians were so far removed from good street design, urban design and public transport that don't even have a clue what that would like. He provides an interesting comparison in this video here of a similar width street in Amsterdam to one in his hometown of London:

• Video Link

And the mindset in Ottawa is really not that different from what's behind the 7 lane road widening in London, or the complaints he makes in the podcast about a suburban dominated council in Toronto. He eventually came around to the idea that this mentality was actually bad for his family:

• Video Link

Unfortunately, not all of us have the choices to just move to Europe. So I guess we gotta stay and fight so that our great grandkids might have a fraction of what they have over there today.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The election next year is going to be quite interesting and I can only imagine that the rhetoric will be wild.

Such a depressing thought.....

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Would an elevated light metro be better than an at-grade LRT line, which the Eglinton Crosstown is (partially)?

I'm guessing that J.OT13 has never lived in Scarborough. The Eglinton Crosstown will be fantastic, specifically because it will provide through service to so much of midtown. I don't know too many Toronto transit advocates who actually think it would have been better off as a light metro. Any light metro proposal would still have required substantial tunneling through the centre. So really all a light metro would have done is reduce stations and raise the cost for the surface running portions. An understandable preference for someone from car dependent Ottawa. But not a sensible approach for folks who actually use transit in Toronto.

The Eglinton line will eventually provide a one-seat ride from U of T Scarborough to the airport eventually. But hey, Ottawa with its double transfers to get to the airport has nothing to learn from Toronto. So....

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

For the foreseeable future, Ottawa doesn't really have many candidates for fully-grade separated transit lines (on "new" corridors).

You kidding? Every corridor that has anything that looks like density is a candidate for a light metro. You clearly don't have enough ambition for this town. /s

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

Well then I guess New York City, London and Paris are doing transit wrong

Cause if Ottawa builds subways 2 km apart, it'll automatically be like New York City, London and Paris?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cause if Ottawa builds subways 2 km apart, it'll automatically be like New York City, London and Paris?

There are plenty of mid-sized cities in the world with metro lines within 2 kilometers apart as well. Actual metro or light-metro lines, not single track, low capacity diesel choo-choos.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

There are plenty of mid-sized cities in the world with metro lines within 2 kilometers apart as well. Actual metro or light-metro lines, not single track, low capacity diesel choo-choos.

How many of them would build a whole new metro line 2km away instead of just converting that choo choo?

But I guess Ottawa has lots of money to build transit infrastructure that is focused on making space for cars so....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How many of them would build a whole new metro line 2km away instead of just converting that choo choo?

But I guess Ottawa has lots of money to build transit infrastructure that is focused on making space for cars so....

I and others have already explained why investing more in the Trillium to convert it to full light-metro is not worth it; Bayview Station.

Let's flip the tables for a moment. You claim that I only support expensive grade separated transit (even though I listed a few non-grade separated proposals that I support). From what I understand, beyond Stage 3, the only grade separation you would support is a tunnel from Rideau Station to St. Laurent. Is that correct?

Would you consider any other grade separated light-metro in Ottawa within the next 30 years beyond Stage 3 and Rideau to St. Laurent?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Would you consider any other grade separated light-metro in Ottawa within the next 30 years beyond Stage 3 and Rideau to St. Laurent?

No I wouldn't. I don't think it's necessary. And I think a far better use of those dollars would be adding more bus lanes and tram lines on every major avenue where it is possible. Focusing exclusively on grade separated rail transit when the vast majority of transit users in this city start and end their journeys on a bus is going to yield nothing but more car dependency. I will refer you back to this video to help you understand what I think we need:

• Video Link

Get bus service down to 15-20 minute frequency all day on most of the routes in this city, and get at least half of the feeder passenger-kms on semi-segregated bus lanes or trams, and then we can talk about building more grade separated rail. Till then, all that is going to be accomplished in building expensive infrastructure, is a massive liability that is massively underused because feeder services suck.

It's funny that you talk about how Toronto overbuilds with the Scarborough Subway and their cavernous stations, and then proceed to advocate for the same here. And yet, the Line 2 Extension in Toronto is forecast to have six figure daily ridership from opening day. That's two thirds of the Confederation Line today. If that's overkill, what would you call building a metro down Montreal that probably wouldn't see half that amount of ridership for decades?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's funny that you talk about how Toronto overbuilds with the Scarborough Subway and their cavernous stations, and then proceed to advocate for the same here. And yet, the Line 2 Extension in Toronto is forecast to have six figure daily ridership from opening day. That's two thirds of the Confederation Line today. If that's overkill, what would you call building a metro down Montreal that probably wouldn't see half that amount of ridership for decades?

So, from your perspective, the modest Canada Line, the Confederation Line and the deep bored Vaughan extension with massive suburban stations (two of which are on are bottom 5 ridership) twice the size are all the same thing?

[OTSkyline]

If the Bank St subway is not doable or ideal, then how about this as a phase 4 or 5:

-New LRT line down Baseline from Algonquin to Billings Bridge
-Same line then heading northeast using the transitway to Hurdman
-Same line then heading north of Hurdman along Vanier Parkway to Montreal Road
-Same line turning right along Montreal Road to reach Line 1's Montreal Station

This new line would offer a route more south of the city (along Baseline) so not all commuters need to be funnelled north to downtown.
Use of existing SE transitway
There is space for inexpensive ground-level LRT along Baseline, Vanier Parkway
and Montreal Road
Sure, riders living on Montreal road would not have direct link to downtown (they would have to transfer at Hurdman) but it would be much faster and more reliable than the current bus situation today.
A lot less expensive and easier to implement than Bank St & Rideau St subway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So, from your perspective, the modest Canada Line, the Confederation Line and the deep bored Vaughan extension with massive suburban stations (two of which are on are bottom 5 ridership) twice the size are all the same thing?

Did I say they were the same thing?

I argue to build infrastructure that is fit for purpose and forseeable demand. Any metro on Montreal Rd will not get to 50 000 boardings per day (half of the Line 2 extension and current ridership of the Canada Line) in the next 30 years. So why would you build a metro that comes with a base capacity of 150-200k riders per day?

You seem to ignore context entirely to make your case (a continuation of the earlier intellectual dishonesty) too. The Canada Line is a line from the third largest airport in the country to the downtown core of the third largest city in the country. It's going to have a reasonable ridership case. The Confederation Line replaced a BRT corridor that was already operating at near metro levels. That's a strong ridership case. A Montreal Rd metro has none of this. And there is no planner in any city who would tell you this is the place to build a metro. A tram? Sure. Priority bus lanes? Sure. Metro? They'd probably laugh at you.

On the Vaughan stations, since you bring it up, you should (again) pay attention to context. The TTC never wanted an extension past York University. The province told them the only way they were getting a Spadina extension was by agreeing to a Vaughan extension as well. Possibly, because it was going to benefit the family of the Finance Minister at the time. Hence why it's called the "Sorbara subway" in Toronto.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

If the Bank St subway is not doable or ideal, then how about this as a phase 4 or 5:

-New LRT line down Baseline from Algonquin to Billings Bridge
-Same line then heading northeast using the transitway to Hurdman
-Same line then heading north of Hurdman along Vanier Parkway to Montreal Road
-Same line turning right along Montreal Road to reach Line 1's Montreal Station

Realistically, Stage 3 & 4 will be all about Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville. If we're really lucky Carling will be fit in there. If not, that's probably Stage 5.

All that aside, who or what exactly is your proposal meant to serve. What do you imagine as a typical trip for this kind of a route?

I think a far better idea is proper bus lanes on all of Baseline, all of Heron and all of Walkley. This would allow a substantial amount of feeder buses operating in various neighbourhoods and terminating at an LRT station to speed up. Couple that with a Rideau-Montreal LRT to serve Vanier and Beacon Hill.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Did I say they were the same thing?

Yes. You did. I'm talking about a Canada Line light-metro, and you're literally saying that it's the same as the deep level heavy rail Scarborough subway with massive stations.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's funny that you talk about how Toronto overbuilds with the Scarborough Subway and their cavernous stations, and then proceed to advocate for the same here.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes. You did. I'm talking about a Canada Line light-metro, and you're literally saying that it's the same as the deep level heavy rail Scarborough subway with massive stations.

I was referring to your Ottawa proposals. Is it really that hard to understand? Why would I be comparing the Canada Line to the Scarborough Subway in a discussion about what Ottawa should build?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

If the Bank St subway is not doable or ideal, then how about this as a phase 4 or 5:

-New LRT line down Baseline from Algonquin to Billings Bridge
-Same line then heading northeast using the transitway to Hurdman
-Same line then heading north of Hurdman along Vanier Parkway to Montreal Road
-Same line turning right along Montreal Road to reach Line 1's Montreal Station

This new line would offer a route more south of the city (along Baseline) so not all commuters need to be funnelled north to downtown.
Use of existing SE transitway
There is space for inexpensive ground-level LRT along Baseline, Vanier Parkway
and Montreal Road
Sure, riders living on Montreal road would not have direct link to downtown (they would have to transfer at Hurdman) but it would be much faster and more reliable than the current bus situation today.
A lot less expensive and easier to implement than Bank St & Rideau St subway.

I find Baseline to Heron will be adequately served by BRT-lite. We just need to build it, however political will seems to be limited at this time due to the City laser focus on Stage 3. Extending those Transitway buses to Hurdman makes sense. I don't believe the S/E Transitway will ever require a capacity upgrade

Vanier Parkway could benefit from bus lanes to serve key nodes like Beechwood, the new developments proposed at the corner of Montreal Road and quite a few Federal office complexes, ending bus routes at Tremblay or Hurdman for better connectivity. The RCMP is only 500 meters from Tremblay, yet access by bike or walking is ridiculously complicated and unsafe.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was referring to your Ottawa proposals. Is it really that hard to understand? Why would I be comparing the Canada Line to the Scarborough Subway in a discussion about what Ottawa should build?

There's a communication issue here. You are comparing my Ottawa proposal of a Canada Line type light-metro with a mix of underground and elevated portions with the deep level underground mega subway of Scarborough. Ergo, from where I'm standing, you're saying that the Scarborough mega subway, the Canada Line and Confederation are the same thing.

[Truenorth00]

I will make my fantasy really simple. To sum it up.

I don't think any more grade separated rail is needed beyond Stage 2 for the next 30 years. But I guess we'll build out to Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville to help them out with some transit induced sprawl.

All I want are curbside bus lanes with transit priority on every major avenue. All of them. Greenbank, Woodroffe, Merivale, Bank, Conroy, St-Laurent, Hunt Club, Walkley, Heron, Baseline, Montreal, Somerset-Wellington-Richmond, Gladstone, Carling, Castlefrank-Kanata, Stittsville Main, etc. There's probably a few in there I forgot. Start at the lowest level in Google maps. Zoom out nine times. If you still see a thick white line, that corridor should have painted curbside bus lanes, transit priority, protected bus shelters and stops before the light.

We need to stop making bus riders wait in traffic in this town. And giving buses priority, along with bolstering frequencies is what will actually foster transit ridership and gain share from the car in this town. Building more expensive downtown focused LRTs that most folks are only going to use for their commute, isn't going to change car dependency. It's just going to perpetuate the idea that transit is for commuters. It's not a replacement for a car.