O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[Harley613]

A Bank Street subway WILL happen, but only after decades of environmental and feasibility studies, arguments between the four levels of government, and endless community consultation and obstruction. We can't build things in Ottawa until we have spent more studying building them than they would have cost when they were first needed.

[kmcamp]

I'd argue that applies to Canada in general.

Edmonton, us, and Toronto seem to be fighting for the incompetence in transit projects crown, and Montreal seems to be a runner up with it's perpetual planned and cancelled Metro extensions. Hopefully REM has a smooth launch

[Kitchissippi]

A Bank Street Subway can only happen if the city nurtures a transit culture and demand on that corridor. Start by putting 5-minute frequency on the buses there, then maybe a tram from Wellington to Billings Bridge. If there's no demand or need, it's not going to happen.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A Bank Street Subway can only happen if the city nurtures a transit culture and demand on that corridor. Start by putting 5-minute frequency on the buses there, then maybe a tram from Wellington to Billings Bridge. If there's no demand or need, it's not going to happen.

Absolutely no investment in a tramway. That's hundreds of millions down the toilet. There was a tram there from 1891 to 1959. It didn't work well then (buses were faster on a parallel route) and it will work worse now.

The city absolutely no interest in running more frequent buses on Bank. OC Transpo is not mandated to increase ridership. Besides, there is close to 5 minute frequency between Route 6 and 7 already.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Absolutely no investment in a tramway. That's hundreds of millions down the toilet. There was a tram there from 1891 to 1959. It didn't work well then (buses were faster on a parallel route) and it will work worse now.

The city absolutely no interest in running more frequent buses on Bank. OC Transpo is not mandated to increase ridership. Besides, there is close to 5 minute frequency between Route 6 and 7 already.

The official frequency is pretty decent, it's that bus bunching is terrible. The easy way to fix that involves removing the sacred cow of on street parking and making permanent bus lanes

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Absolutely no investment in a tramway. That's hundreds of millions down the toilet.

And a far more expensive subway would be different because...?

There was a tram there from 1891 to 1959. It didn't work well then (buses were faster on a parallel route) and it will work worse now.

For the sake of discussion, a streetcar is not a tram.

Grade separated transit is built to support needed capacity, not speed. Speed is often a side benefit, but you do not spend several times more money than you may need to in order to shave a few minutes off a trip.

There is no guarantee that a Bank Street subway would be faster than a bus, or a tram.

OC Transpo is not mandated to increase ridership.

I don't know what level of pedanticism you are willing to descend to this time, but that's not true.

Straight from the Transit Commission's terms of reference:

5. Pursue the following objectives in order to provide the best possible public transit service for all customers:
a. Attract an increasing number of customers to transit;

Now there's no argument that the commission isn't fulfilling this mandate, but these are decisions that come from above OC Transpo.

Besides, there is close to 5 minute frequency between Route 6 and 7 already.

You are complaining that OC Transpo doesn't care to increase ridership, but then you give them a free pass for this...?

The 6 and 7 only run at that level during peak periods. Outside of those periods, the fall off in service levels is steep, particularly in evenings. On top of that, you only get this level of service between Sunnyside and Rideau. Beyond that, you get the base level of service on each route which isn't very good.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

The official frequency is pretty decent, it's that bus bunching is terrible. The easy way to fix that involves removing the sacred cow of on street parking and making permanent bus lanes

lrt's friend has made their opinion on this clear in the past, and frankly I think they share the lack of vision that they accuse OC Transpo of having.

If you want to make transit a priority on Bank Street, we can already do it! We don't need to build a subway. Just reimplement the King Street transit priority project on Bank. End of story.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[Spoonsy]

most of the rail-based heavy machinery from bayview disappeared in the last two days, today they are removing construction fencing and installing final chain-link

i walk my dog past bayview a few times a day so i'll be sure to take a pic of the first train i see

[OTSkyline]

12 minutes is really a shame, and the bare minimum.

Is there no way to improve frequency without more double-tracking?
And is 12 minutes going to be offered day/week long? Or is that the "peak" frequency and frequency drops down to 15-20minutes nights & weekends?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

12 minutes is really a shame, and the bare minimum.

Is there no way to improve frequency without more double-tracking?
And is 12 minutes going to be offered day/week long? Or is that the "peak" frequency and frequency drops down to 15-20minutes nights & weekends?

There's no way of improving that without double tracking Walkley Station, which would bring frequency up to 10 minutes. I'm sure someone could provide more precise numbers, but the cost of that was estimated at around $20 million about 4 years ago. Since then, the City spent a couple million rehabilitating the overpass that would need to be replaced for that double tracking.

The 12 minute frequency should be all day, expect maybe when the Confederation Line drops to 15 minutes after 11pm.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

There's no way of improving that without double tracking Walkley Station, which would bring frequency up to 10 minutes. I'm sure someone could provide more precise numbers, but the cost of that was estimated at around $20 million about 4 years ago. Since then, the City spent a couple million rehabilitating the overpass that would need to be replaced for that double tracking.

The 12 minute frequency should be all day, expect maybe when the Confederation Line drops to 15 minutes after 11pm.

The 12 minute frequency I can live with, if the train actually keeps up a good pace.

When they "upgraded" the line last time, I found myself wishing for the old 15 minute frequency they used to have while sitting in that siding at Walkley. The slightly higher frequency was more than offset by much slower trains

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

And a far more expensive subway would be different because...?

The original comment was to invest in a tramway as a step towards a subway. It seems that investing twice for rail transit on Bank is unlikely and wasteful.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

For the sake of discussion, a streetcar is not a tram.

My understanding that the term 'streetcar' is only used in North America. Elsewhere, they are called 'trams'. Let's not micro-define various types of rail transit vehicles.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Grade separated transit is built to support needed capacity, not speed. Speed is often a side benefit, but you do not spend several times more money than you may need to in order to shave a few minutes off a trip.

There is no guarantee that a Bank Street subway would be faster than a bus, or a tram.

It is a revelation to me that transit operating in traffic and facing numerous traffic signals would operate as fast as grade-separated transit.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I don't know what level of pedanticism you are willing to descend to this time, but that's not true.

Straight from the Transit Commission's terms of reference:


Now there's no argument that the commission isn't fulfilling this mandate, but these are decisions that come from above OC Transpo.

I don't know what the point of this is. Comments have been made in this discussion group just recently that OC Transpo will only increase service based on demand. I don't know how we increase ridership without some selective investment. Does it really matter what the 'official' mandate is? What matters is the policies that have been followed in the last several years and comments that have been made by transit officials.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You are complaining that OC Transpo doesn't care to increase ridership, but then you give them a free pass for this...?

The 6 and 7 only run at that level during peak periods. Outside of those periods, the fall off in service levels is steep, particularly in evenings. On top of that, you only get this level of service between Sunnyside and Rideau. Beyond that, you get the base level of service on each route which isn't very good.

You take my comment out of context. The original comment was that we need to start with 5 minute service as a first step. My comment is that we are already close to this, perhaps not in all service hours, but in many service hours. I am all for making Bank Street a very frequent transit corridor sooner than later.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

lrt's friend has made their opinion on this clear in the past, and frankly I think they share the lack of vision that they accuse OC Transpo of having.

If you want to make transit a priority on Bank Street, we can already do it! We don't need to build a subway. Just reimplement the King Street transit priority project on Bank. End of story.

This is your opinion. I believe that this would be disastrous for Bank Street businesses. We seem to believe that 'all' north-south transportation routes can be sacrificed.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My understanding that the term 'streetcar' is only used in North America. Elsewhere, they are called 'trams'. Let's not micro-define various types of rail transit vehicles.

You know that wasn't the point.

The Bank Street tram/streetcar did not operate in a segregated right of way.

I don't know what the point of this is. Comments have been made in this discussion group just recently that OC Transpo will only increase service based on demand. I don't know how we increase ridership without some selective investment. Does it really matter what the 'official' mandate is? What matters is the policies that have been followed in the last several years and comments that have been made by transit officials.

It's true. OC Transpo will only add more service as existing demand increases. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone who follows transit matters to understand why though: OC Transpo can't exceed their approved budget.

You're right that it requires selective investment, but it's very important to understand the distinction of responsibilities here. The people who set transit policies clearly have a mandate to attract more riders.

Yes, the transit commission and city council have not done a good job of that over the years, but please don't drag this conversation down with nonsense claims like this.

This is your opinion. I believe that this would be disastrous for Bank Street businesses. We seem to believe that 'all' north-south transportation routes can be sacrificed.

All the more evidence that you'd be okay with spending literally billions of dollars specifically to save on-street parking.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is your opinion. I believe that this would be disastrous for Bank Street businesses. We seem to believe that 'all' north-south transportation routes can be sacrificed.

There are no north-south transportation option being sacrificed through the removal of parking on bank st. Opposite is true in that Buses would get better, and it would provide actual local rapid transit, unlike a stubway for the suburbs.

It also would not be disastrous for the majority of the businesses on Bank, most of which customers are local, this could also be dealt with through building parking garages if truly required. Instead your defending on-street parking for major corridor over better bus transit....

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It's true. OC Transpo will only add more service as existing demand increases. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone who follows transit matters to understand why though: OC Transpo can't exceed their approved budget.

You're right that it requires selective investment, but it's very important to understand the distinction of responsibilities here. The people who set transit policies clearly have a mandate to attract more riders.

Yes, the transit commission and city council have not done a good job of that over the years, but please don't drag this conversation down with nonsense claims like this.

The thing that bothers me though is no one at OC Transpo seems to provide Council with options to increase ridership. Like, "OK, Transit Commission, you say you want to increase ridership, here are X, Y, and Z options to do so". Then if Transit Commission votes those options down, at least they were given the choices.

Perhaps you could say that OC Transpo is being held-back politically from even presenting those options, but that isn't how it's supposed to work so I still blame them (at least partially) for not having the political bravery to present the options that might help them break out of their ridership decline.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

The thing that bothers me though is no one at OC Transpo seems to provide Council with options to increase ridership. Like, "OK, Transit Commission, you say you want to increase ridership, here are X, Y, and Z options to do so". Then if Transit Commission votes those options down, at least they were given the choices.

Perhaps you could say that OC Transpo is being held-back politically from even presenting those options, but that isn't how it's supposed to work so I still blame them (at least partially) for not having the political bravery to present the options that might help them break out of their ridership decline.

With near certainty there is nothing that could make a substantial difference to the 2023 ridership numbers. Even if money was no object what would make a big difference? Small increases could happen from some new or more frequent routes but at great cost per additional rider.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

With near certainty there is nothing that could make a substantial difference to the 2023 ridership numbers. Even if money was no object what would make a big difference? Small increases could happen from some new or more frequent routes but at great cost per additional rider.

To quote the Simpsons: "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

The thing that bothers me though is no one at OC Transpo seems to provide Council with options to increase ridership. Like, "OK, Transit Commission, you say you want to increase ridership, here are X, Y, and Z options to do so". Then if Transit Commission votes those options down, at least they were given the choices.

Perhaps you could say that OC Transpo is being held-back politically from even presenting those options, but that isn't how it's supposed to work so I still blame them (at least partially) for not having the political bravery to present the options that might help them break out of their ridership decline.

This is expressly not the responsibility of OC Transpo. That is what the Transit Commission is for.

OC Transpo's role is to execute the direction of the Transit Commission, or otherwise tell the Commission that something isn't possible for X, Y, or Z reasons. Beyond that, they are limited to whatever they can do under the authority that has been delegated to them by the Commission, which isn't a lot.

Laying out an entire plan to increase ridership goes beyond the scope of work that the Commission has approved (other than the current route review, if you count it), and coming up with such a plan would require more staff resources than are available.

In short: the Commission has to ask for those options. Staff preparing those options on their own terms would (presumably) be a violation of their delegated authority.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

There are no north-south transportation option being sacrificed through the removal of parking on bank st. Opposite is true in that Buses would get better, and it would provide actual local rapid transit, unlike a stubway for the suburbs.

It also would not be disastrous for the majority of the businesses on Bank, most of which customers are local, this could also be dealt with through building parking garages if truly required. Instead your defending on-street parking for major corridor over better bus transit....

When we talk about King Street transit priority, this is more than the elimination of on street parking.

On the subject of implementing or even suggesting proposals to increase ridership, from the public perspective, it does not matter the involvement of the commission or staff, it is all the OC Transpo bureaucracy. We need to cut through this and make some progress.

[lrt's friend]

I keep trying to make transit work but it becomes embarrassing.

The R2 bus is unreliable sh*t. The schedule isn't even a suggestion. I tried to allow ample time to meet friends at the Italian festival, but the bus didn't show up. Another family of 4, gave up and decided to skip the Italian festival and went directly to another location.

I eventually got there and with both Line 1 and Line 2 not functioning (or not operating as normal) and all the bus routes detoured, I believe that the vast majority of the thousands who went arrived by private vehicle or some other non-transit means. Virtually nobody used the R2 to reach the festival.

The city would consider this a success with thousands in attendance, but what are we doing having most people drive to an urban festival? And making transit unviable alternative for most points to a future where alternative transportation is not considered a reasonable choice.

One of our group from Orleans commented on never taking the Confederation Line again after having to use it daily starting in 2019 and the awful experience that followed. It doesn't take much for most people to right off transit.

I understand that this is all anecdotal, but we ignore this at our peril.

Regarding Trillium Line construction, the station at Carleton University is not close to completion and the new pedestrian bridge across the Rideau still has no floor. I think there is still time for a fall completion of both, but progress seems behind other locations.