Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Yeah, when I say possible, I mean it in the sense of providing some decent ROI. The Glebe would never see the kind of density required and old Ottawa east, probably similar (though maybe with a bit more potential than the Glebe). It would hinge more on Hurdman and the Carling corridor (around Preston and east of Preston) adding significant density, which I think is possible.

Yeah. The way folks in Westboro are fighting triplexes makes me very pessimistic for the intensification prospects for these older neighborhoods.

I maintain that the city is going to look a lot different and value very different corridors in two decades as development takes up along existing transit lines. In that sense, I think corridors like Carling offer way more potential than Bank. Wide enough to easily put down BRT or LRT. Not many "stable" neighbourhoods. It'd be a developer bonanza.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't know if this quote right here was exactly what I was getting at either, mind you.

My apologies then. I recall you saying something along the lines of, "I agree with you but there are more constructive ways to package your arguments". May not be verbatim but that's what I remember.

Anywho, I certainly think the ad hominem arguments don't add anything of value to discussion, and only serve to bring toxicity into the threads.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

My apologies then. I recall you saying something along the lines of, "I agree with you but there are more constructive ways to package your arguments". May not be verbatim but that's what I remember.

Anywho, I certainly think the ad hominem arguments don't add anything of value to discussion, and only serve to bring toxicity into the threads.

This is exactly what I wrote. I'm pointing out that your very valid post about civility seems to have with a thinly veiled ad hominem.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The Bank subway is an idea that stems from the Bayview capacity conundrum that will inevitably occur in the distant future. If we double track Trillium and start seeing upwards of 3000-4000 peak hour transfers in 20+ years from now, we might be looking at more than 18,000 EB trips during peak.

We can either extend platforms and trains to buy us some time at that point, or look at alternatives.

18 000 EB isn't something that requires a new subway line though. This is exactly what 120m platforms and a network capable of 2 mins headways is for.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I happen to like the light metro idea for Bank (which is a mode that is well-suited for 7500+ pphpd) because it brings high quality transit to a relatively urban corridor with major attractions, and potentially provides direct RT transit to downtown from the airport and the growing southern communities.

You don't need a subway for 7500+ pphpd. In-median LRT (like Finch West in Toronto) can actually handle that. Heck, the old Transitway was doing that. But I went one better and said we should just turn the whole northern half of Bank into a tramway. That's easily 10 000 pphpd. And would complement an upgraded Trillium Line nicely. It's also an idea that could be pulled off for a billion bucks and built inside of 30 years. That $2B subway? Not happening in 30 years, if it happens in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

And I don't think a second light metro line in a city that will likely be close to 2 Million people by then (including Gatineau) is such an absurd idea.

I agree. Which is why I foresee the Trillium Line being upgraded as soon as we finish the Barrhaven extension and can serve the southwest during a 2 yr Trillium Line closure.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

And then in the same post:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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:

Why is it that when J.OT13 says that Toronto is a poor transit role model, you get all defensive, but when Jason Slaughter basically says Toronto transit sucks, you say that he is totally right?

Why do you think that Ottawa should use Toronto as a role model for its transit system if its system is so bad?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And then in the same post:



Why is it that when J.OT13 says that Toronto is a poor transit role model, you get all defensive, but when Jason Slaughter basically says Toronto transit sucks, you say that he is totally right?

Why do you think that Ottawa should use Toronto as a role model for its transit system if its system is so bad?

Jason Slaughter was holding Toronto up to the standards of London, England, where he had just moved back from. And in his videos, he'll often say that Toronto does have areas which are livable without a car. Heck, he made an entire video about Riverdale as a model suburb for North America.

The inner Toronto suburbs that Slaughter does complain about? They have sub 10 min frequencies (denoted as "FS" for "Frequent Service" on schedules) on plenty of routes at rush. Midday and even later evenings, most non-major routes are usually no more than 15-20 min headways throughout the day. If you're on a major avenue, you don't even bother looking at schedule. I'm sure there's the odd exception (before your gotchya itch triggers), but you never wait long for a bus or streetcar virtually anywhere in the TTC's service area.

So if London, UK is the standard we're going to use (because that was Slaughter's bar), and Toronto failed it, just imagine what he'd say about Ottawa where 15-20 min headways all day for buses (and is barely the peak service standard) is considered out of reach and unrealistic, transit priority is an entirely foreign concept, but transit advocates dream of multiple multi-billion dollar metros instead. I'm fairly sure he'd lump us in with London....the one he grew up in....

His entire philosophy boils down to walkability and transit priority. Does that sound like Ottawa to you? Toronto ain't perfect (far from it), but they are way ahead of us on that front. I'd actually love for us to catch up and I advocate for ideas in that direction.

And just cause I'm a fan, I'll post that video where he emphasizes walkability and transit priority again:

• Video Link

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Bread_Kaczynski

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

So you're telling me that a Home Depot parking lot needs as much transit infrastructure as Manhattan ?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

So you're telling me that a Home Depot parking lot needs as much transit infrastructure as Manhattan ?

No. No. You see if you build subways to Home Depot parking lots, they automatically develop into something like SoHo. It's science.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

This is exactly what I wrote. I'm pointing out that your very valid post about civility seems to have with a thinly veiled ad hominem.

Ohh I see what you're saying now. The "we're all adults here, at least I think we are" comment wasn't directed at TN. I was just saying that because I legitimately don't know if there's some younger folks participating in the discussion lol. I know TN is grown man with family based on previous discussions.

I maybe should've thought that one through a bit more.

[Aylmer]

Tone is famously hard to convey in writing. Accusation of shadiness withdrawn Apologies

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

18 000 EB isn't something that requires a new subway line though. This is exactly what 120m platforms and a network capable of 2 mins headways is for.

Right. 2 minute headways gets us to 18k pphpd and platform extensions (with longer trains) gets us 24k. The platform extensions is only a temporary fix, though, and that's my main point. We can spend money double-tracking Trillium and extending all 29+ stations of Confed line (likely more stations by then), or that money can go towards a more long-term solution. Because at this rate, Trillium ain't getting double tracked until the 2040's at the earliest anyways.

That's my line of thinking on it. The surface vs underground debate for Bank is another matter that's up for discussion.

We could spend money on a packaged solution that includes double-tracking of Trillium, Confed line capacity enhancements and a Bank surface Tram, or we could spend money a new light metro that goes from RSS/Airport to downtown (which would keep Trillium line under it's current passing track configuration between Bayview and Greenboro/South Keys).

As you already know, I prefer the latter because of the aforementioned benefits and because I think it will be extremely challenging to plan a surface tram along Bank that will have enough exclusive ROW to make the investment worthwhile. At least that's my opinion on the matter at this point in time, but who knows, things change.

[JHikka]

I've nothing really to add because this conversation has circled round and round for the past six months on the same talking points, but...

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And just cause I'm a fan, I'll post that video where he emphasizes walkability and transit priority again:

..how many times have you shared this video in the past week? It feels like it's been a lot.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Tone is famously hard to convey in writing. Accusation of shadiness withdrawn Apologies

Looking back at it, I honestly don't blame you for thinking that lol. No harm done

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JHikka

..how many times have you shared this video in the past week? It feels like it's been a lot.

I've shared this one twice. I've shared several of his other videos.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Right. 2 minute headways gets us to 18k pphpd and platform extensions (with longer trains) gets us 24k. The platform extensions is only a temporary fix, though, and that's my main point. We can spend money double-tracking Trillium and extending all 29+ stations of Confed line (likely more stations by then), or that money can go towards a more long-term solution. Because at this rate, Trillium ain't getting double tracked until the 2040's at the earliest anyways.

That's my line of thinking on it. The surface vs underground debate for Bank is another matter that's up for discussion.

We could spend money on a packaged solution that includes double-tracking of Trillium, Confed line capacity enhancements and a Bank surface Tram, or we could spend money a new light metro that goes from RSS/Airport to downtown (which would keep Trillium line under it's current passing track configuration between Bayview and Greenboro/South Keys).

As you already know, I prefer the latter because of the aforementioned benefits and because I think it will be extremely challenging to plan a surface tram along Bank that will have enough exclusive ROW to make the investment worthwhile. At least that's my opinion on the matter at this point in time, but who knows, things change.

You succinctly describe the many benefits.

Also, building a tramway on such a narrow street actually turns Bank Street more into a traffic sewer than today especially if we want trams to move at a decent speed. What is the point if all we create is a Queen Street streetcar or recreate a Bank Street streetcar of the 1950s where trams travel at 15 kph or less. It is a total waste of money.

The additional benefits of going underground include wider sidewalks with the possibility of sidewalk cafes and new cycle tracks. We can't have that with the reasonable expectation of business access (no BIA in their right mind would allow the closure of Bank Street to regular traffic) and a tram ROW.

New on-street LRT in Toronto (Spadina, St. Clair, parts of Eglinton and Finch) is based on a street wide enough to allow both regular traffic and LRT to run in separate lanes. That is not possible on Bank without making the pedestrian environment worse.

We can argue all we want but as soon as we move traffic to Bronson or wherever else, fewer people will see and know about the businesses on Bank. It is not so much about on-street parking but business visibility. This is why businesses suffer so badly when streets undergo reconstruction.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

... at this rate, Trillium ain't getting double tracked until the 2040's at the earliest anyways.

Any Bank St subway is coming long after that. Especially when you consider that over $10B will have been spent on the first three stages.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

We could spend money on a packaged solution that includes double-tracking of Trillium, Confed line capacity enhancements and a Bank surface Tram, or we could spend money a new light metro that goes from RSS/Airport to downtown (which would keep Trillium line under it's current passing track configuration between Bayview and Greenboro/South Keys).

Given that choice, I would choose the package.

1) Can be done piecemeal.
2) Adds to the walkability of Bank St. Including with a lot more surface stops.
3) Boosts frequency for both existing transit lines helping a lot more users.
4) Bank tram can be interlined with Trillium to provide downtown access.

Really this comes down to whether you prioritize lots of spending for the few, or some spending for a lot of users. I see the former approach usually from folks who primarily drive to get around. So they get fixated on certain trips (airport access for example) or fixate on modes as a replacement for the car. That's not how transit usage works though. Good transit is generally frequency and coverage. And from that perspective, I don't see why spending the extra billion bucks to save somebody a few minutes on Bank in a Subway (while giving them fewer stops) is a good thing over using that same money so on making Bank more accessible on the street while also making all the existing transit lines more frequent and higher capacity.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As you already know, I prefer the latter because of the aforementioned benefits and because I think it will be extremely challenging to plan a surface tram along Bank that will have enough exclusive ROW to make the investment worthwhile. At least that's my opinion on the matter at this point in time, but who knows, things change.

Hamilton is doing the same for their current LRT. There really isn't much different here. And I'm suggesting we go a step further and get rid of the traffic. Bank really should be something more like Elgin without the cars. But yes, it'll be a tough slog to convince people that we need to prioritize transit over cars and that it just isn't worthwhile to spend a billion dollars extra burying a line for a miniscule amount of road capacity to the core. Luckily, we've probably got 3-4 decades to have this discussion....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

.
We can argue all we want but as soon as we move traffic to Bronson or wherever else, fewer people will see and know about the businesses on Bank. It is not so much about on-street parking but business visibility. This is why businesses suffer so badly when streets undergo reconstruction.

Yeah. Businesses in all those walkable neighbourhoods in Europe and Asia are all struggling because they don't have two curbside parking spots. Guess business are only visible from cars. You won't notice them if you're on a tram or bus. But you will if you're in a subway?

And people wonder why I say this forum has car-centric thinking.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. Businesses in all those walkable neighbourhoods in Europe and Asia are all struggling because they don't have two curbside parking spots. Guess business are only visible from cars. You won't notice them if you're on a tram or bus. But you will if you're in a subway?

And people wonder why I say this forum has car-centric thinking.

Yes, I know that subways are car-centric thinking.

By the same token, routing most transit riders away from Bank Street, which has been Ottawa's transit model for many years, is also good for Bank Street businesses. Transit riders will be flocking to Bank Street business as they transfer at Bayview Station. At least, on a subway, you are only an escalator ride away.

I find it odd how a Bank Street tramway is a possibility when we already ripped up a Bank Street tramway in 1959. A good investment of many millions.

I also find it odd how a Bank Street transit mall is a good idea when a Rideau Street transit mall in the 1980s killed almost every business facing Rideau Street that was not part of the Rideau Centre.

I am sure that a dead Bank Street transit mall at 2 a.m. with no traffic (including trams) will promote a safe environment. What do they say about eyes on the street? That includes car drivers.

Before we embark on more crazy experiments of traffic-free streets, we better learn how to make Sparks Street work a whole lot better first. Yes, we can look to Europe and Asia for better ways to do things, but we better make sure that they are transferrable to North American culture.

[Aylmer]

I will just point out that there not being car access on Rideau was far from the main cause of its commercial decline. To disregard elements like the construction of the Rideau Centre itself and the decline of urban retail generally in that era is an almost willful oversight. Rideau was transit-only in 2014-2020, and saw a resurgence of retail and pedestrian activity despite construction. Not necessarily because it was only transit vehicles, but more to illustrate that the composition of vehicular traffic isn't an important factor of retail success. When you really think about it, how much do the dozen street parking spaces matter to the twenty-odd businesses west of Dalhousie? How much of H&M's business can possibly come from people parked in the 2 spaces in front of the store who'd have otherwise not gone but for those two spaces? The more you think about it, the more implausible it becomes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, I know that subways are car-centric thinking.

When you build them to n facilitate cars (in this case apparently because of window shopping at 50 kph), they most certainly are.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At least, on a subway, you are only an escalator ride away.

On a streetcar, you're steps away. On a subway, you're several escalators and a long walk way. Stop spacing matters to walkability.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I find it odd how a Bank Street tramway is a possibility when we already ripped up a Bank Street tramway in 1959. A good investment of many millions.

Lots of cities made boneheaded decisions to rip up streetcar tracks. And we're paying for that now. If only we'd followed the example of Toronto on this one....

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I also find it odd how a Bank Street transit mall is a good idea when a Rideau Street transit mall in the 1980s killed almost every business facing Rideau Street that was not part of the Rideau Centre.

Cause that has to do with transit and not the mall sucking in all business... Ever been to the block on Yonge St in Toronto where the Eaton Centre is? Bit better now. But it used to be as bad as Rideau till the 90s. And they had no transit mall, and were bracketed by two subway stations.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am sure that a dead Bank Street transit mall at 2 a.m. with no traffic (including trams) will promote a safe environment.

Probably going to be better than no eyes on the street at all.....