Kanata LRT EA - Bayshore to Palladium

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Can we please ask the very basic question of, “how many people outside of the 9-5 PS commuters will actually use a train to get from Kanata to downtown?”. Sure.. easier to get to Algonquin, Bayshore, etc, but the 2 Billion $ question is…. do we *really* need all that capacity from 5am to 1am?

The "2 Billion $" is for the entire Moodie to Hazeldean Rd extension. As mentioned in post #1222, the segment from Moodie to Terry Fox was estimated to cost $710 million, which is good value for money as I indicated in the following post:

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you consider it is about 6.4 km from Moodie to Terry Fox and about 3 km from Terry Fox station to Palladium and 1.9 km from Palladium to Hazeldean, we end up with the cost per km as follows:

1. Moodie station to Terry Fox station: $110.94 million / km
2. Terry Fox station to Palladium station: $213.33 million / km
3. Palladium station to Hazeldean station: $263.16 million / km

From that, we should only do Moodie station to Terry Fox station.

Having fast frequent service to downtown from a central location with ample parking will make it easier to use during evenings and weekends (when the connecting bus service isn't as good).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Cynicism aside, an advantage of extending LRT to the 'burbs might be increased suburban buy-in to the existing urban consensus that additional investments in citywide transit are a good thing.

Until we see some investment in urban transit in urban Ottawa, can it be said that that "consensus" even exists?

There is a "consensus" amongst the suburban-dominated council that the suburbs should get all of the higher-order transit that the city can afford, and the the denser and diverse urban core should not. But that's a suburbwide transit consensus, not a citywide one.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Until we see some investment in urban transit in urban Ottawa, can it be said that that "consensus" even exists?

There is a "consensus" amongst the suburban-dominated council that the suburbs should get all of the higher-order transit that the city can afford, and the the denser and diverse urban core should not. But that's a suburbwide transit consensus, not a citywide one.

How would you decide that an area deserves BRT and LRT?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would you decide that an area deserves BRT and LRT?

For me it's population density and volumes, which are far higher in the core. BRT has more than sufficient capacity for lower density suburban areas for the foreseeable future.

When I mentioned higher order transit for the urban core, I was more referencing lines that would serve the older, denser neighbourhoods that generate the highest transit ridership. If we are actually concerned about increasing transit ridership, those are the areas to focus on.

Right now we essentially have suburban lines that pass through the core, but don't do much of a job of serving the people that actually live there. The Gatineau LRT would be the same, as it wouldn't serve those residents either. We have done a decent job of intensifying those areas, so now it's time to actually provide decent transit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would you decide that an area deserves BRT and LRT?

It used to be, once upon a time, that it was the densest and most economically diverse parts of the city that you put your higher-order transit through, on, or under.

We are now doing the exact opposite, Phase I gets out from under the core as quickly and cheaply as possible; Phase II is mostly about the suburbs except in the near west end (good for them) where they accidentally get a metro because it serves the western suburbs that way; Phase III is entirely suburban. Trillium is a bit of a hybrid case with the addition of both suburban service and a whopping one new urban station at Gladstone.

And, at the same time, there is nothing being done to improve the bus situation for the urban communities. Reliability? Comfort? Frequency? Convenience? Connectivity? If anything, most of those desirable goals have been harmed by LRT-related reconfigurations and cuts.

There's really no way to stitch BRT into the traditional urban context. So that's out. In the longer term, IF (big IF) we actually decide to bring higher-order transit to the rest of the unserved core, it will have to be rail and ideally, at some point, underground.

When it comes to bringing urban Ottawa into a higher-order transit world, and a transit system that can help re-invent and re-invigorate some of those urban areas that need it, the city has tried nothing and is all out of ideas. And yet, this same urban core is paying a very fair share for the suburban transit plan, including the eventual Kanata and Farrhaven lines.

I'd really like to see an answer to "when?" for that urban transit plan, that isn't "Lol never".

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It used to be, once upon a time, that it was the densest and most economically diverse parts of the city that you put your higher-order transit through, on, or under.

We are now doing the exact opposite, Phase I gets out from under the core as quickly and cheaply as possible; Phase II is mostly about the suburbs except in the near west end (good for them) where they accidentally get a metro because it serves the western suburbs that way; Phase III is entirely suburban. Trillium is a bit of a hybrid case with the addition of both suburban service and a whopping one new urban station at Gladstone.

And, at the same time, there is nothing being done to improve the bus situation for the urban communities. Reliability? Comfort? Frequency? Convenience? Connectivity? If anything, most of those desirable goals have been harmed by LRT-related reconfigurations and cuts.

There's really no way to stitch BRT into the traditional urban context. So that's out. In the longer term, IF (big IF) we actually decide to bring higher-order transit to the rest of the unserved core, it will have to be rail and ideally, at some point, underground.

When it comes to bringing urban Ottawa into a higher-order transit world, and a transit system that can help re-invent and re-invigorate some of those urban areas that need it, the city has tried nothing and is all out of ideas. And yet, this same urban core is paying a very fair share for the suburban transit plan, including the eventual Kanata and Farrhaven lines.

I'd really like to see an answer to "when?" for that urban transit plan, that isn't "Lol never".

You can walk from the Parliament Buildings to the 417 in about a half an hour. With in that area, how many stations are there?
Now, go to Barrhaven and Kanata. How many stations are out there within a half hour walk?

The truth of the matter is that once Phase2 is done and fully up and running, it will be time for downtown to get a second route as the central section will get crowded. The question is where and how.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You can walk from the Parliament Buildings to the 417 in about a half an hour. With in that area, how many stations are there?
Now, go to Barrhaven and Kanata. How many stations are out there within a half hour walk?.

Not sure what you mean by your question. Isn’t the real issue how many people would live within walking distance of a Bank St or Rideau/Montreal line, and what proportion of them are transit users? You can easily serve far more people downtown that you could in Kanata in the next 3 decades.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not sure what you mean by your question. Isn’t the real issue how many people would live within walking distance of a Bank St or Rideau/Montreal line, and what proportion of them are transit users? You can easily serve far more people downtown that you could in Kanata in the next 3 decades.

No.

My question refers to how many taxpayers are already close to a station vs those not close. Remember, just like the people in Downtown are paying for the extensions to Orleans, the people in Kanata already paid for service to Downtown.

[Mikeed]

The Confederation Line already has a legacy that is less than stellar operationally and financially. A lot of that comes down to the "award winning" P3 that designed it and operates it.

The massive expense for the extension past Terry Fox really does create legitimate questions of responsible value. Considering that it is about spending massive taxpayer money to finally see the gains from the "land play" that was the Corel Centre/NHL stadium built out in farm fields. Yes, there is a lot of TOD potential in that area, but who really gains from that?

The money should go towards developing higher functioning transit within the satellite cities, grounded in the reality that these are satellite cities. The potential for the Confederation Line's legacy to become a white elephant is very real. I know people don't want to consider it because this forum is basically for sim city fans, however, brass tacks, it's kind of a huge waste of money driven almost entirely - at least "phase 3"- by politics and private land development ($$$).

The world axis is turning. The boomer retirement is well into happening now and we have already left the era of easy access to capital. We are going to see the cost of capital remain high for systemic reasons of demographics as the trillions of dollars held in retirement funds shift from late income years where they can go to high risk / high return to deep retirement draw down years where capital is going to flow into safer returns. Easy access to capital is over.


This is a long winded way of saying... I do not think this is a good plan for the future of Ottawa and I do not think this plan serves the people well.

The world is now firmly on the shoulders of the millennials; most of whom are working class who will net less in their lifetime then their parents.

Get the train to Terry Fox yes.

I'm trying to find the article but even with sky high fuel prices, employment that has statistically returned to normal and people more or less "living with the virus" transit ridership numbers have fallen dramatically and not seen any bounce back largely because of work from home.

We have to acknowledge that the Confederation Line phase 3 is fundamentally a commuter rail system for the public service.

[Mikeed]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Reliability? Comfort? Frequency? Convenience? Connectivity? If anything, most of those desirable goals have been harmed by LRT-related reconfigurations and cuts.

This really needs to be considered as you are 100% correct here.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My question refers to how many taxpayers are already close to a station vs those not close. Remember, just like the people in Downtown are paying for the extensions to Orleans, the people in Kanata already paid for service to Downtown.

You are right when you say that people in Kanata paid for service to downtown. What they haven’t paid for is service in downtown. As designed, the current system is heavily weighted to the interests of suburban commuters, and reallly does little for all day, urban transit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by phil235

You are right when you say that people in Kanata paid for service to downtown. What they haven’t paid for is service in downtown. As designed, the current system is heavily weighted to the interests of suburban commuters, and reallly does little for all day, urban transit.

Most transit is not focused on anything more than the commuting. Doesn't matter where in Canada. Look around and most transit is designed for moving commuters from the suburbs into town. That started when the old Streetcar lines were ripped up.

Originally Posted by feckless

It also does very little for intra suburban … Its not fun getting from Barrhaven to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit...The LRT was designed for the Public Service and that's about it.

That is very true.
Which should be done first, a line across the south, or another line in downtown area?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by feckless

It also does very little for intra suburban … Its not fun getting from Barrhaven to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit...The LRT was designed for the Public Service and that's about it.

That’s true for sure. But creating good intra suburb transit is a problem that may not be solvable. Low density neighbourhoods that are designed for cars just aren’t compatible with efficient transit or with high transit use. Sure you can make improvements to the status quo, but unless you completely redesign the street grid and dramatically increase density, efficient transit service or high ridership is a bit of a pipe dream. Unlike older central areas where we could dramatically improve transit and increase ridership tomorrow if we just dedicated some resources.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by phil235

That’s true for sure. But creating good intra suburb transit is a problem that may not be solvable. Low density neighbourhoods that are designed for cars just aren’t compatible with efficient transit or with high transit use. Sure you can make improvements to the status quo, but unless you completely redesign the street grid and dramatically increase density, efficient transit service or high ridership is a bit of a pipe dream. Unlike older central areas where we could dramatically improve transit and increase ridership tomorrow if we just dedicated some resources.

Put an LRT along Hunt Club and you would solve most of it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

That’s true for sure. But creating good intra suburb transit is a problem that may not be solvable. Low density neighbourhoods that are designed for cars just aren’t compatible with efficient transit or with high transit use. Sure you can make improvements to the status quo, but unless you completely redesign the street grid and dramatically increase density, efficient transit service or high ridership is a bit of a pipe dream. Unlike older central areas where we could dramatically improve transit and increase ridership tomorrow if we just dedicated some resources.

Yes doing your errands in the suburbs is a pipedream. As for central areas you could double bus frequency across the board and add very few riders. Doesn't mean we should forget about these riders but waiting 12 or 6 minutes isn't make or break for most. The cost does matter but again not at the margins.

The system was designed to move people cheaply and convince those that drive they should pay for it as it will get someone else to take transit freeing up a spot on the 417 for them.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes doing your errands in the suburbs is a pipedream. As for central areas you could double bus frequency across the board and add very few riders. Doesn't mean we should forget about these riders but waiting 12 or 6 minutes isn't make or break for most. The cost does matter but again not at the margins.

The system was designed to move people cheaply and convince those that drive they should pay for it as it will get someone else to take transit freeing up a spot on the 417 for them.

I think you are underestimating how much frequency, and particularly all-day frequency matters to transit riders. While a 12-minute wait may not seem like a big deal, it becomes a bigger deal for shorter trips (like most trips in the inner urban area) and a much bigger deal when the trip involves a transfer. Suddenly 12 minutes can become 24 minutes of waiting plus travel time and transit is no longer a competitive option. Jarrett Walker explains it well in this article - https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe.

The other comment I would make is that in reality, we are rarely talking about going from 12 to 6 minutes in Ottawa. Many, if not most of our urban "high frequency" routes drop to 20 or 30 minute headways at mid-day or in the evenings when people might be inclined to take transit to go for dinner or visit friends. Sure the incremental gains might diminish as you go from 10 minutes to 8 minutes to 6 minutes, but we've got to get somewhere close to 10 minutes before that becomes an issue.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by feckless

It also does very little for intra suburban … Its not fun getting from Barrhaven to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit...The LRT was designed for the Public Service and that's about it.

Heck, its not fun to get from Kanata to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit. Having said that, the new route 110 does help.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by feckless

It also does very little for intra suburban … Its not fun getting from Barrhaven to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit...The LRT was designed for the Public Service and that's about it.

Disagree on this one. LRT to Kanata will result in a new station at March/Eagleson that will create a new bus transfer hub in Kanata that does not currently exist.

A transit trip from, say, Stittsville to Kanata North is very difficult today because buses to Kanata North don't connect at Eagleson- they are only available on the other side of the highway.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by feckless

It also does very little for intra suburban … Its not fun getting from Barrhaven to a major employment centre like Kanata North on public transit...The LRT was designed for the Public Service and that's about it.

That is also something that needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be that hard to create some B-line style direct and efficient suburb-to-suburb service. The terribleness of suburb-to-suburb trips is hurting service and retail industries whose employees churn as a result.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by feckless

Where along Hunt Club?...going through Nepean a large chunk of it is Greenbelt meaning, currently, you'd only get development on one side of the track (also why I don't like its current route on SJAM. This would limit density along the route no?

I'll correct myself.
Run it along Roberson/Baseline/Innes instead. Run it from Stittsville to Orleans.
That would connect the various suburbs outside the Greenbelt and give options to get around outside downtown without going downtown.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That is also something that needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be that hard to create some B-line style direct and efficient suburb-to-suburb service. The terribleness of suburb-to-suburb trips is hurting service and retail industries whose employees churn as a result.

The problem is most, if not all politicians are not taking the transit so they do not care about it.