Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

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.

It seems to me if our goal is 1.5 hours to cross the city, we have failed miserably, when you can drive across the city in 30 minutes. I drive by the 417 electronic board near Hunt Club fairly often and if it said 90 minutes to reach Kanata, I would be thinking of another route or another destination. I guess we are also happy to achieve 0.5% modal share, which is all that we would get.

One of our problems is that our rapid transit planning does not actually speed up transit. Often rapid transit results in slower travel times. What are we doing? When are we going to run our trains faster than a bicycle? This needs to be a top priority.

Just wait, Phase 2 of the Trillium Line will produce slower travel times again. Remember when it was 12 minutes from Greenboro to Bayview. That was a major reason for its success. It was actually substantially faster than regular transit or even by car. Who would have thought that possible? Then we scuttle all other ideas that could potentially move transit faster than a car.

As far as terminus for LRT in Barrhaven and Kanata, we are fools if we think a park and ride is the best place. It needs to be the town centre, where people work, shop and have fun and there is potential for intensification. That is not going to happen at Eagleson or Fallowfield. If commuting is not going to be the main purpose of transit in the future, we got to stop thinking as if that is still the case. Eagleson and Fallowfield are both commuting stop overs and nothing more.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as terminus for LRT in Barrhaven and Kanata, we are fools if we think a park and ride is the best place. It needs to be the town centre, where people work, shop and have fun and there is potential for intensification. That is not going to happen at Eagleson or Fallowfield. If commuting is not going to be the main purpose of transit in the future, we got to stop thinking as if that is still the case. Eagleson and Fallowfield are both commuting stop overs and nothing more.

This exactly.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just wait, Phase 2 of the Trillium Line will produce slower travel times again. Remember when it was 12 minutes from Greenboro to Bayview. That was a major reason for its success. It was actually substantially faster than regular transit or even by car. Who would have thought that possible? Then we scuttle all other ideas that could potentially move transit faster than a car.

Of all the examples you could have picked, why would you drag the Trillium Line into this?

Its end-to-end run time before being closed was 17 minutes, which is on-par with doing that trip by car (if you hit all the green lights). It still exceeded all expectations and reached record ridership numbers just before the pandemic. We traded 5 minutes of time for a marginal boost in service levels and capacity, which while not ideal, is nowhere near the level of "failure" or whatever you're trying to prescribe to it. If the end-to-end times are slower post Stage 2 (which according to what we know so far, they won't) it'll be because two new stations will have opened up that improve connectivity around growing and existing areas of the inner city.

If the point is to make transit competitive with driving, and that the bar for success is to make urban transit faster than driving, then that goal is practically impossible to achieve without actively making driving slower or more inconvenient. You could run a direct shuttle bus from Kanata Town Centre to Place d'Orleans that just runs straight down the 417/174 and it would still never be faster than driving that same trip at all times of day because that's just not physically possible. It's the same for any proposal involving Bank Street. Unless you make driving on Bank Street more inconvenient, transit is not going to get any more competitive-- and no, building a subway isn't a feasible option.

So again, of all the examples you could have picked, you chose the one line that is the single most time-competitive transit lines in the city over 5 minutes of travel time. Meanwhile, you continue to concern-troll over any idea of reducing car volumes on Bank.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It seems to me if our goal is 1.5 hours to cross the city, we have failed miserably, when you can drive across the city in 30 minutes. I drive by the 417 electronic board near Hunt Club fairly often and if it said 90 minutes to reach Kanata, I would be thinking of another route or another destination. I guess we are also happy to achieve 0.5% modal share, which is all that we would get.

Name a single city in the world where transit is faster than driving door-to-door, that is not massively dense and/or does not substantially restrict driving. You can't live in Barrhaven and expect the transport situation of Lower Manhattan or Central London.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

One of our problems is that our rapid transit planning does not actually speed up transit. Often rapid transit results in slower travel times. What are we doing? When are we going to run our trains faster than a bicycle? This needs to be a top priority.

1) The category of service as a whole is called mass transport or public transport.

2) It's called "rapid transit" because it is faster than local transit services. Not because it's faster than driving.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Of all the examples you could have picked, why would you drag the Trillium Line into this?

Its end-to-end run time before being closed was 17 minutes, which is on-par with doing that trip by car (if you hit all the green lights).

So again, of all the examples you could have picked, you chose the one line that is the single most time-competitive transit lines in the city over 5 minutes of travel time. Meanwhile, you continue to concern-troll over any idea of reducing car volumes on Bank.

So it's fast from South Keys to Bayview? How many are doing that? It's great for Carleton and probably has shifted resident patterns for Carleton students and employees which it can do much faster than an employment noted. Airport to Rideau or Parliament as a different story.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Name a single city in the world where transit is faster than driving door-to-door, that is not massively dense and/or does not substantially restrict driving. You can't live in Barrhaven and expect the transport situation of Lower Manhattan or Central London.

It's not about being faster but being competitive. 3X and an additional hour isn't competitive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's not about being faster but being competitive. 3X and an additional hour isn't competitive.

Again. Find an example where transit is "competitive" with driving, in a city with a similar density and lack of restriction on driving. Find a model we can compare to.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again. Find an example where transit is "competitive" with driving, in a city with a similar density and lack of restriction on driving. Find a model we can compare to.

There isn’t one.

But I also think we’re expecting transit to do too much. Ottawa is a smallish, low-density city where car ownership is very high and the city’s largest employer requires employees to report to a workplace twice a week.

Transit is not going to supplant the car in Ottawa in the current century.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There isn’t one.

But I also think we’re expecting transit to do too much. Ottawa is a smallish, low-density city where car ownership is very high and the city’s largest employer requires employees to report to a workplace twice a week.

Transit is not going to supplant the car in Ottawa in the current century.

And that's fine. But then we should stop with the ridiculous idea that transit should be built to be competitive with the car in Ottawa . It's obviously not going to happen. To the extent that we're investing in transit in Ottawa, it's going to be for city building and general public mobility.

[J.OT13]

The goal of the O-Train should not be to reach from one end of the City to the other fast enough to compete with the car. If that was the goal, you would have very few stations between Orleans and Kanata. That would be a failure.

The only common reason to head to the other side of the City is to attend a concert of hockey game. Hopefully, that will be resolved once the arena is moved Downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Imagine a 1.5 hour transit ride after a Sens game. So, it takes 30 minutes to get out of CTC. It is still a whole lot faster by car. Express buses replaced by a 30 or 40 stop train. Is this really an improvement?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Imagine a 1.5 hour transit ride after a Sens game. So, it takes 30 minutes to get out of CTC. It is still a whole lot faster by car. Express buses replaced by a 30 or 40 stop train. Is this really an improvement?

Well no, and that's why we need to move the arena. The arena's location is the problem, not the transit system.

For what it's worth though, it can take an hour easy to go back to Orleans by car after a game. I've never been able to get out of the parking lot faster than 30 minutes, and then it's another 30,40 minute drive. But sure, the event bus as it exists is faster. Not going in, because it's stuck in the same traffic as cars, but coming out, they have their own ramp.

[Truenorth00]

Suburbanites almost never think of sprawl as the problem. But then insist transit compete with completely unencumbered driving. Madness.

These discussions are almost radicalizing me against any further transit investment outside the greenbelt. Cause it seems our suburbanites are all but hopeless with understanding basic geography and basic time, distance, speed problems.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Suburbanites almost never think of sprawl as the problem. But then insist transit compete with completely unencumbered driving. Madness.

These discussions are almost radicalizing me against any further transit investment outside the greenbelt. Cause it seems our suburbanites are all but hopeless with understanding basic geography and basic time, distance, speed problems.

What is worse is suburbanites don't see their subdivision as a bad thing for transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Of all the examples you could have picked, why would you drag the Trillium Line into this?

Its end-to-end run time before being closed was 17 minutes, which is on-par with doing that trip by car (if you hit all the green lights). It still exceeded all expectations and reached record ridership numbers just before the pandemic. We traded 5 minutes of time for a marginal boost in service levels and capacity, which while not ideal, is nowhere near the level of "failure" or whatever you're trying to prescribe to it. If the end-to-end times are slower post Stage 2 (which according to what we know so far, they won't) it'll be because two new stations will have opened up that improve connectivity around growing and existing areas of the inner city.

If the point is to make transit competitive with driving, and that the bar for success is to make urban transit faster than driving, then that goal is practically impossible to achieve without actively making driving slower or more inconvenient. You could run a direct shuttle bus from Kanata Town Centre to Place d'Orleans that just runs straight down the 417/174 and it would still never be faster than driving that same trip at all times of day because that's just not physically possible. It's the same for any proposal involving Bank Street. Unless you make driving on Bank Street more inconvenient, transit is not going to get any more competitive-- and no, building a subway isn't a feasible option.

So again, of all the examples you could have picked, you chose the one line that is the single most time-competitive transit lines in the city over 5 minutes of travel time. Meanwhile, you continue to concern-troll over any idea of reducing car volumes on Bank.

Any train that needs to run at an excruciating slow pace is a failure. At times (when I was riding it), you could walk faster. My quick calculations indicate that the 5 minute slower speed is more than a 40% reduction in speed. Is this really to be complimented? You gain 3 minutes in frequency to lose 5 minutes in speed. To me, this is a net loss, for a substantial expenditure.

Any transit improvement is usually measured in a few minutes. A loss of 5 minutes, is substantial. It is extremely irritating to ride on transit that runs very slowly and both rail lines now have slow sections where this is happening despite having an exclusive right of way. Why should I not complain about these design failures? Perhaps, I am the most persistent, but others have also commented and what about the silent majority who grumble under their breath about this.

I really get annoyed about my words being twisted. I say that the Trillium Line is truly car competitive and then it is said that this means that all transit needs to reach the same level. I did not say that, so why bring it up? However, when we invest in rapid transit, there should be a net gain in transit speed, otherwise, why spend the money? It may be only a few minutes, but Ottawa seems to get into projects where there is a net loss in speed. Why should I not complain about this?

I am a taxpayer and I expect to see value for my money.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am a taxpayer and I expect to see value for my money.

I agree. You should see value.

That's why we should avoid investing in higher order transit in lower density areas which offer diminishing returns on ridership. I guess we can end the Stage 3 debate here then.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Well no, and that's why we need to move the arena. The arena's location is the problem, not the transit system.

For what it's worth though, it can take an hour easy to go back to Orleans by car after a game. I've never been able to get out of the parking lot faster than 30 minutes, and then it's another 30,40 minute drive. But sure, the event bus as it exists is faster. Not going in, because it's stuck in the same traffic as cars, but coming out, they have their own ramp.

This is an example of a transit investment designed to speed up service. We need to consider more projects that show a real benefit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Suburbanites almost never think of sprawl as the problem. But then insist transit compete with completely unencumbered driving. Madness.

These discussions are almost radicalizing me against any further transit investment outside the greenbelt. Cause it seems our suburbanites are all but hopeless with understanding basic geography and basic time, distance, speed problems.

What about inside the Greenbelt, beyond the Confed Line corridor? I see next to no investment there either.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What about inside the Greenbelt, beyond the Confed Line corridor? I see next to no investment there either.

We're three quarters of the way through nearly $7B in total investment for the Trillium and Confederation Lines, the majority of which is inside the Greenbelt. Quite the stretch to say there's no investment inside the Greenbelt and then caveat the statement to effectively exclude the largest transit investment in the city's history.

And next up on deck are the BRTs, which aren't likely to be built outside the greenbelt. Those will offer substantial improvements without the same capital commitments or construction time.

You not liking a certain a transit project doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the city and therefore not real investment.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're three quarters of the way through nearly $7B in total investment for the Trillium and Confederation Lines, the majority of which is inside the Greenbelt. Quite the stretch to say there's no investment inside the Greenbelt and then caveat the statement to effectively exclude the largest transit investment in the city's history.

And next up on deck are the BRTs, which aren't likely to be built outside the greenbelt. Those will offer substantial improvements without the same capital commitments or construction time.

You not liking a certain a transit project doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the city and therefore not real investment.

The Confederation and Trillium Lines are ultimately about improving transit for suburbanites. We're just converting what we already have. It's not new transit for the inner Greenbelt.

That said, it's not like there's no benefit for the urban area. The Downtown tunnel, Pimisi, Bayview and Corso Italia, the Byron tunnel and two stations are all major improvements for the core however, they are mostly just a side effect of a grand scheme to bring rail to the suburbs.

The planned BRTs are about half and half. Inside the Greenbelt will get Baseline and Carling (maybe), but outside the Greenbelt gets Cumberland, Kanata North, Chapman Mills and Stittsville.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

One of our problems is that our rapid transit planning does not actually speed up transit.

Neither does our non-rapid transit planning, or other stupid things we keep doing to streets that are essential for bus non-rapid transit, particularly in the urban and central neighbourhoods.