Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[skyscraperaccount]

You're telling me that we planned a 3 stage transit system that was to support and grow our community for the next what, 50 years minimum, and no one ever thought about shifting use cases and the impact of technology on ability work from home or work remote? Everyone approving this multi-billion dollar transit system didn't take into account the long term effects of TOD along this future system and projected that maybe downtown wouldn't remain the primary work hub? Gower et al are short sighted.

Build stage 3 and properly feed into it with local bus routes. Stop builiding park and rides and develop those properties. Discourage car commuting by gettig rid of HOV and increasing the cost of vehicle use (parking fees, tolls, licensing etc)

All of a sudden induced demand goes out the window when speaking of building stage 3 but we all believe it exists when building roads.

[Truenorth00]

I'm not sure we planned anything....

Somebody made a long term network map 20 years ago and our transit projects have been working towards it. But as costs go up, completion gets more difficult.

When it comes to induced demand for transit, I would bet better bus service will do more than Stage 3 LRT extensions would.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not sure we planned anything....

Somebody made a long term network map 20 years ago and our transit projects have been working towards it. But as costs go up, completion gets more difficult.

When it comes to induced demand for transit, I would bet better bus service will do more than Stage 3 LRT extensions would.

As more buses can be pulled from long trips along the transitway, I would hope service frequencies on the circulator routes to feed the LRT would improve, and induce some demand there. The choice has to be made to not try to realise savings immediately to do it however.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no sense in zoned fares for a city like Ottawa. Transit usage is too low to require that kind of capacity rationing. If it's just about collecting data, tap out can be required without changing the fare system.

We had capacity rationing for decades, in the form of suburban express fares, which we abolished, and could afford to, because we jacked up the regular fare, which was also the only fare inside the Greenbelt.

So, once again, the centre subsidizes the burbs.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And take them to where? Tremblay?

There aren't enough riders to justify a whole separate rail system in Ottawa. And there isn't a destination that is practical for them, without having them end up back on the O-Train.

Suburbanites need to learn to appreciate the bus or appreciate traffic.

Build an underground system to the old Union station that the Senate currently is sitting in.If it is build with heavy rail standards, it could just tie into existing rail lines and abandoned rail lines.

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

I'd like for the different levels of government to be open and transparent.

If the option is Stage 3 or a bunch of other projects (Carling BRT, Baseline BRT, etc), then I would choose the later
If the option if Stage 3 or nothing, I'll take stage 3.

Instead of BRTs, why not do LRTs? Why build it twice?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's about the same number of stops on the TTC from Union to Scarborough Town Centre. Hundreds of thousands of Torontonians do some version of 45 min train ride like that everyday. And that trip has a transfer (Yonge-Bloor). I would think the getting from Eagleson or Barrhaven to Rideau after Stage 3 would take a max of 40 mins.
I'm not sure an express bus would actually be much faster. Especially, without express bus lanes the whole way. And then there's the issue of efficiency, running that many buses and moving 50 pax with a driver at a time.

Realistically, express service to the core isn't on the menu. So the comparison is a bus ride to Moodie in Kanata and Baseline in Nepean or a bus ride to Eagleson in Kanata and Fallowfield in Barrhaven. And the question is whether the efficiency gains from transferring those passenger-miles from bus to rail is worthwhile.

I don't think Scarborough is the right comparison for Stittsville, more like Uxbridge or Georgetown or something like that.

I don't think you need express service to the core, I think you need express service to Moodie or Bayshore (or Algonquin on the other branch).

It isn't really removing many buses. Outside of rush hour the Route 61 has a 30 minute frequency. The 62 has a 30 minute frequency all the time.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Build an underground system to the old Union station that the Senate currently is sitting in.If it is build with heavy rail standards, it could just tie into existing rail lines and abandoned rail lines.

Does money grow on trees?

We're talking about building a tunnel beside a canal in some of the most unstable soil in the city (there's a vehicle buried near Rideau as proof). You have any idea what that would cost? And for what? Maybe 1-2% of commuters a day? It's an even more wasteful idea when the largest employer in town has basically ruled out going back to work 5 days a week and is even setting up suburban workspaces for many of the rest avoid coming downtown altogether.

If the provinces and feds want to pay for that, they can do it. I would never vote for such a waste as a municipal taxpayer. Not to mention, the same money put in to repairing the terrible bus service would deliver multiple of the ridership the commuter system would.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think Scarborough is the right comparison for Stittsville, more like Uxbridge or Georgetown or something like that.

The reason I used Scarborough-Union as an example because it's 24 stops. Hence the comparison against 23 stops to Rideau.

Contextually, maybe Uxbridge and Georgetown are better comparisons. The difference is that they have GO stations that their local services feed into. We are using the O-Train as both metro and regional rail service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think you need express service to the core, I think you need express service to Moodie or Bayshore (or Algonquin on the other branch).

It isn't really removing many buses. Outside of rush hour the Route 61 has a 30 minute frequency. The 62 has a 30 minute frequency all the time.

Sure. But I guess the question is whether we could improve service and is that worthwhile. There's probably a case to at least get the terminii to Eagleson and Fallowfield. A station at Eagleson puts most of Kanata within 20 mins (by bus) of the O-Train. The same for Fallowfield station at Barrhaven. Going beyond that is probably likely to see returns diminish massively. I would concede that.

I think of these locations as similar to Scarborough Centre in Scarborough. That one station is within a half hour bus ride of all of northern Scarborough.

Would I prioritize these over the Carling and Baseline BRTs? Definitely not.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Does money grow on trees?

We're talking about building a tunnel beside a canal in some of the most unstable soil in the city (there's a vehicle buried near Rideau as proof). You have any idea what that would cost? And for what? Maybe 1-2% of commuters a day? It's an even more wasteful idea when the largest employer in town has basically ruled out going back to work 5 days a week and is even setting up suburban workspaces for many of the rest avoid coming downtown altogether.

If the provinces and feds want to pay for that, they can do it. I would never vote for such a waste as a municipal taxpayer. Not to mention, the same money put in to repairing the terrible bus service would deliver multiple of the ridership the commuter system would.

With the endless extensions to the suburbs and exurbs, this very expensive option would a a solution that could see the LRT built out in the core and still give the far flung citizens of the city access to downtown. I would not think that the city would pay for it, much like Toronto did not pay for GO.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The reason I used Scarborough-Union as an example because it's 24 stops. Hence the comparison against 23 stops to Rideau.

But that is a willingness to do 24 stops for an area that is relatively dependent on transit. I don't think most Scarberians would take transit if they had a 15-30 minute drive downtown.

[OTSkyline]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Build an underground system to the old Union station that the Senate currently is sitting in.If it is build with heavy rail standards, it could just tie into existing rail lines and abandoned rail lines.



Instead of BRTs, why not do LRTs? Why build it twice?

Simple reason, costs. Carling specifically is very wide for the most part and could probably accommodate BRT-style frequent and reliable service from Lincoln Fields to Little Italy or Bronson. Today this route is extremely slow and unreliable (and subject to bunching) because buses are mixed in with traffic and continuously have to weave in and out of bus bays or side stops. You would probably get something like 85% of the benefits of LRT at less than half of the cost.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With the endless extensions to the suburbs and exurbs, this very expensive option would a a solution that could see the LRT built out in the core and still give the far flung citizens of the city access to downtown. I would not think that the city would pay for it, much like Toronto did not pay for GO.

Like I said, if the province and feds are willing to pay, let them do it. But I'd want the same deal as GO. They should pay to run it too. So far, neither the Queen's Park, nor the feds, have shown any interest in giving Ottawa the same deal as the GTA. And that was true, even when the Premier was from Ottawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But that is a willingness to do 24 stops for an area that is relatively dependent on transit. I don't think most Scarberians would take transit if they had a 15-30 minute drive downtown.

Fair point. The driving distance from Kanata to Rideau Centre is actually pretty close to the distance from STC to Union (it's a difference of 3-4 km). The only difference is that road capacity in Ottawa is relatively higher making driving easier.

That said, I would hope that we're building a transit system that is about more than just commuters. I hope we can get to the point someday that somebody can travel from Orleans to Kanata within a reasonable amount of time (1.5 hrs door to door would be my goal) on transit.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by skyscraperaccount

You're telling me that we planned a 3 stage transit system that was to support and grow our community for the next what, 50 years minimum, and no one ever thought about shifting use cases and the impact of technology on ability work from home or work remote? Everyone approving this multi-billion dollar transit system didn't take into account the long term effects of TOD along this future system and projected that maybe downtown wouldn't remain the primary work hub? Gower et al are short sighted.

Build stage 3 and properly feed into it with local bus routes. Stop builiding park and rides and develop those properties. Discourage car commuting by gettig rid of HOV and increasing the cost of vehicle use (parking fees, tolls, licensing etc)

All of a sudden induced demand goes out the window when speaking of building stage 3 but we all believe it exists when building roads.

Exactly this, the short sightedness is baffling. And anyone who thinks we will somehow get a bank street LRT or somehow massive injection into our BRT because of them cancelling Stage 3 doesn't understand how difficult it is for Ottawa to get funding at the provincial level. Getting the provincial government to spend on Stage 3 which was already communicated to them, and has completed studies is more likely to happen. If Gower and co lobby to get this taken away, we will get nothing but useless study after study and nothing else in return for no less than a decade.

The economic and long-term city planning benefits of Stage 3 is far greater than we're making it seem. And those saying it's going to be slower than BRT have not taken this current disjointed system because you're effectively foregoing approximately 271,220 (2022 numbers) of our city's metro population from direct access to LRT. We want the whole city to start buying into transit, and we don't get that by alienating our two fastest growing boroughs.

And then there's the issue of TOD and sprawl. Of course we aren't going to get TOD and extreme density right now, but the mentality of saying "Ottawa' central core is all we should care about when building the network" is the big reason we will continue to have this nonsense of sprawl. We've seen the plans in place with just the prospect of stage 3, and the fact is we won't see the benefits right away... but those benefits will be seen over the next 20-25 years.


And then there's the fact of FINALLY being ahead of the curve with building out our network and using today's dollars to do it instead of clamoring to do it and trying to do it when it's more difficult/even MORE costly.

It really makes less sense to be in support of transit but think Stage 3 is only useful as a commuter line, because it wouldn't be. And that brings us to fixing local bus routes within each of the city's boroughs and core areas: it's much much better for local transit to feed off the LRT than not. Or we can stay with what we got, and have them continue to reduce bus service, and take zero improvements to the overall network. I am sure we will see huge investments into bus transit by our current city's councilors or provincial government.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That said, I would hope that we're building a transit system that is about more than just commuters. I hope we can get to the point someday that somebody can travel from Orleans to Kanata within a reasonable amount of time (1.5 hrs door to door would be my goal) on transit.

I just think they choose the wrong technology/design if that was a goal.

Something that more closely resembles the BART or the RER would have made that goal more realistic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I just think they choose the wrong technology/design if that was a goal.

Something that more closely resembles the BART or the RER would have made that goal more realistic.

I think you are mixing up technology and service typology. What determines average speed is stop spacing. Higher the stop spacing, the higher the average speed.

GO network: 625 km / 71 stations ~ 8.8 km spacing.

TTC subway network: 77 km / 75 stations ~ 1 km spacing

Confederation Line after Stage 2: 40 km / 29 stations ~ 1.4 km spacing.

So the Confederation Line is more metro than regional rail. There's other issues with the technology. But I think what you're getting at is that we chose to build a metro instead of a suburban rail system.

But if we're talking about extensions, it's really about judging the marginal impact of the additions themselves. And at least going to Eagleson and Fallowfield would be higher than average stop spacing because they are crossing the greenbelt. The value is that those stations can become very good bus hubs. Just like SC for Scarborough or Kipling in the West of Toronto. Harder to run more frequent buses to Moodie and Baseline from the respective burbs.

Either way, I guess we'll get a better sense of this after Stage 2.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think you are mixing up technology and service typology. What determines average speed is stop spacing. Higher the stop spacing, the higher the average speed.

GO network: 625 km / 71 stations ~ 8.8 km spacing.

TTC subway network: 77 km / 75 stations ~ 1 km spacing

Confederation Line after Stage 2: 40 km / 29 stations ~ 1.4 km spacing.

So the Confederation Line is more metro than regional rail. There's other issues with the technology. But I think what you're getting at is that we chose to build a metro instead of a suburban rail system.

But if we're talking about extensions, it's really about judging the marginal impact of the additions themselves. And at least going to Eagleson and Fallowfield would be higher than average stop spacing because they are crossing the greenbelt. The value is that those stations can become very good bus hubs. Just like SC for Scarborough or Kipling in the West of Toronto. Harder to run more frequent buses to Moodie and Baseline from the respective burbs.

Either way, I guess we'll get a better sense of this after Stage 2.

Yes.

There are hybrid options like the RER and BART, but those have fairly wide station spacing. Most of the Confederation Line stops are very close together.

But in the city's defence, nobody was talking about building rail to the outer suburbs 10 years ago. Phase 1 was the current confederation line, and phase 2 was a Westward extension to baseline. It was assumed that beyond that it would be BRT over the long term.

If the feds and province had said a decade or so they wanted rail to the edge of the city then it might look different.

[Truenorth00]

I would think of future Western extensions in two categories.

1) Crossing the Greenbelt.

2) Expanding in the suburb itself.

The first category is mostly about reducing the substantial pax-km spent crossing the Greenbelt on a bus. Cut that down and the bus routes should be more reliable and frequent.

The second category is much more about enabling intra-suburb travel. For example, get on at Kanata Centrum and get off at Moodie. This might be more questionable.

I think what is needed is a gauge of how much pax-km cross the Greenbelt if these places had decent bus service. Not the — they have now. And also some idea of how much travel there is inside the suburb that would benefit from several stops inside the suburb.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Simple reason, costs. Carling specifically is very wide for the most part and could probably accommodate BRT-style frequent and reliable service from Lincoln Fields to Little Italy or Bronson. Today this route is extremely slow and unreliable (and subject to bunching) because buses are mixed in with traffic and continuously have to weave in and out of bus bays or side stops. You would probably get something like 85% of the benefits of LRT at less than half of the cost.

And in 30 years, lose all that benefit for 5 years while it is converted. Instead, bite the bullet and build something that does not need to be upgraded in the future. I get the draw of BRT, but if you look long term, it is less appealing. It also doesn't cause TOD, of which is desperately needed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I said, if the province and feds are willing to pay, let them do it. But I'd want the same deal as GO. They should pay to run it too. So far, neither the Queen's Park, nor the feds, have shown any interest in giving Ottawa the same deal as the GTA. And that was true, even when the Premier was from Ottawa.

I would agree. I would even say it should also include something on the other side of the river too. That almost automatically throws it into federal territory.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I just think they choose the wrong technology/design if that was a goal.

Something that more closely resembles the BART or the RER would have made that goal more realistic.

The goal of taking someone during off peak hours from Orleans to Kanata in 90 minutes is certainly not what we are after as hard as it is for the 5 people a week who want to do such a thing.

Our tech choice was interesting in that we chose a tram that can operate in mixed traffic with relatively low capacity only to jam almost all east west travellers onto trains that are completely grade separated. Phase 3 beginning to spread out onto multiple routes and then have some ability to bypass stations would begin to make sense. As you said 24 stops will be only used by somebody who has absolutely no other choice when you can drive in 15-30 minutes. Most of our transit choices seem designed to get other people off the road so we have less cars in the way but the designers never ask themselves who using a private vehicle now is going to switch.