Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[FFX-ME]

I still think, transit-wise, the thing that makes the most sense considering the current proposal is to eliminate the greenbelt in the portions that will be adjacent to the LRT lines. That way we can target growth towards the center of the core along rapid transit routes. Copenhagen does this I believe.

The center high-density, portion of Ottawa is fairly small and a streetcar route should serve it rather well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yes the local bus route is overcrowded much of the time, but the solution to an overcrowded bus route is not to build a mass transit system.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That's exactly what they are planning in Vancouver.

The 99 B Line carries way more people.

A better comparator would be Finch West in Toronto. The bus at peak has 18 runs an hour. It services 44,000 customer trips a day.

When Vanier gets to around those thresholds, then higher order transit should come.

[lrt's friend]

It all sounds like the chicken and egg theory.

You can't build rapid transit without density but you can't build density without rapid transit.

While it is true that it makes no sense to build commuter rail into Vanier, there are ways of improving transit that need to be considered. There is all sorts of alternatives between the current bus route model and the Confederation Line model.

When you really look at it, the Confederation Line model is extreme. There is a good chance that the Confederation Line may be the busiest single LRT line in North America the day it opens.

It seems to me that we are putting blinders on to suggest that rapid transit only makes sense if we are going to be moving 100,000s of passengers a day on each route.

This is why we end up with a crappy proposal for the Trillium Line and why every other rail transit proposal for other parts of the city has been abandoned, yet similar ideas are very functional in countless cities around the world.

We don't have to have a train running every two minutes through the tunnel, just as we don't need every train to run on exactly the same route. It is ridiculous how inflexible we are designing our system for the future. We build one super fantastic route across the city while the rest of the transit network is either crap or mired in traffic.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I still think, transit-wise, the thing that makes the most sense considering the current proposal is to eliminate the greenbelt in the portions that will be adjacent to the LRT lines. That way we can target growth towards the center of the core along rapid transit routes. Copenhagen does this I believe.

The center high-density, portion of Ottawa is fairly small and a streetcar route should serve it rather well.

There is little point in building a surfacestreetcar system that has to fight the same inherent challenges - traffic volume, conflicting traffic and signals, choke points, lack of river crossings - that the bus system downtown faces.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The 99 B Line carries way more people.

A better comparator would be Finch West in Toronto. The bus at peak has 18 runs an hour. It services 44,000 customer trips a day.

When Vanier gets to around those thresholds, then higher order transit should come.

What *is* the 12 at, ridership-wise? OC Transpo jealously guards such statistics.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What *is* the 12 at, ridership-wise? OC Transpo jealously guards such statistics.

Well, just look at the frequency - it has to be somewhat demand following.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We don't have to have a train running every two minutes through the tunnel, just as we don't need every train to run on exactly the same route. It is ridiculous how inflexible we are designing our system for the future. We build one super fantastic route across the city while the rest of the transit network is either crap or mired in traffic.

This is what happens when the suburbs rule the roost.

Seattle - at a much larger scale, being a much larger metro - is about to embark on the same path. $50-billion in fixed transit investments are being floated: subways, LRTs, busways. Almost none of it in the city of Seattle itself. Almost all of it either in the suburbs, or aimed at speeding commute times between the suburbs and the office core.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, just look at the frequency - it has to be somewhat demand following.

The frequency on paper and the frequency in real life are two different things.

And after the split from the former crosstown 2 in 2008, 18% of the weekday runs were cut. Some of that capacity was restored, finally, after many many many years of complaints, about two years ago, but it is still running below 2008 frequencies. Capacity is further reduced by OC Transpo's insistence that 40 footers can handle the passenger load on the route. They can't. The old 2 ran almost 100% of its routes on artics. The 12 runs may 75% on artics. i'd like to have a firm figure, but OC Transpo won't give it out - the old lack of accountability thing rearing its head again.

[Vanier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Mass transit needs a mechanism to put asses in seats. There are a number of ways to do this.

The thing is, you don't need to put asses in the seats in the Vanier area or other areas of the core because they already exist! You don't need to create them. Most people in this area rely on public transit. Full stop. There is an almost Marie Antoinette attitude in this city of let the "plebes" take the bus (they have no choice) because we need to get the suburbs to "buy in" to mass transit with shinny new trains. This argument is so back assward...it doesn't merit rebuttal.

Honestly, it is a Field of Dreams argument: if we build it, they will come. It is plan built on hope, not need.

[Vanier]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, just look at the frequency - it has to be somewhat demand following.

I wish but it certainly doesn't.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Vanier

The thing is, you don't need to put asses in the seats in the Vanier area or other areas of the core because they already exist! You don't need to create them. Most people in this area rely on public transit. Full stop. There is an almost Marie Antoinette attitude in this city of let the "plebes" take the bus (they have no choice) because we need to get the suburbs to "buy in" to mass transit with shinny new trains. This argument is so back assward...it doesn't merit rebuttal.

Honestly, it is a Field of Dreams argument: if we build it, they will come. It is plan built on hope, not need.

It is also about urban renewal and Vanier has a bunch of empty lots that need redevelopment. And as long as there is only a bus, any redevelopment will be low density.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Vanier

The thing is, you don't need to put asses in the seats in the Vanier area or other areas of the core because they already exist! You don't need to create them. Most people in this area rely on public transit. Full stop. There is an almost Marie Antoinette attitude in this city of let the "plebes" take the bus (they have no choice) because we need to get the suburbs to "buy in" to mass transit with shinny new trains. This argument is so back assward...it doesn't merit rebuttal.

Honestly, it is a Field of Dreams argument: if we build it, they will come. It is plan built on hope, not need.

12 runs 8 times an hour in rush hour. Even if they are all 60s and all packed to crush capacity, that is 960 pax per hour. A mass transit system would have to run 95% below capacity. Even if it doubled or tripled ridership, it would still be a white elephant.

[JM1]

Actually, there are several routes where surface LRT could work.

1. Rideau-Montreal
2. St Patrick-Beechwood-Hemlock-St Laurent
3. Merivale

Take out parking and reserve a lane. Well placed and convenient transit will make up for lost traffic lanes.

Also, we should explore putting transit routes where no traffic connections exist. For example, from the Rapifbus line, across Kettle Islamd to the CFB Rockcliffe development and the down St Laurent to the LRT line. Such a route would create excellent interprovincial connectivity between rapid transit outside of the central core, while also providing valuable local service on St Laurent and to the CFB Rockcliffe development.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There is little point in building a surfacestreetcar system that has to fight the same inherent challenges - traffic volume, conflicting traffic and signals, choke points, lack of river crossings - that the bus system downtown faces.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

12 runs 8 times an hour in rush hour. Even if they are all 60s and all packed to crush capacity, that is 960 pax per hour. A mass transit system would have to run 95% below capacity. Even if it doubled or tripled ridership, it would still be a white elephant.

Sounds about the level of demand for the white elephant Trillium Line. I guess it was a mistake from day one.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JM1

Actually, there are several routes where surface LRT could work.

1. Rideau-Montreal
2. St Patrick-Beechwood-Hemlock-St Laurent
3. Merivale

Take out parking and reserve a lane. Well placed and convenient transit will make up for lost traffic lanes.

Also, we should explore putting transit routes where no traffic connections exist. For example, from the Rapifbus line, across Kettle Islamd to the CFB Rockcliffe development and the down St Laurent to the LRT line. Such a route would create excellent interprovincial connectivity between rapid transit outside of the central core, while also providing valuable local service on St Laurent and to the CFB Rockcliffe development.

Someone suggesting the Kettle Island bridge? Can't be.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by JM1

Actually, there are several routes where surface LRT could work.

1. Rideau-Montreal
2. St Patrick-Beechwood-Hemlock-St Laurent
3. Merivale

Take out parking and reserve a lane. Well placed and convenient transit will make up for lost traffic lanes.

Well, removing that lane and those parking spots would not be in the best interest of the Suburbanites, so doubtful that will happen. Streetcars have the exact same issues that busses have. Surface LRT would work if the city wasnt always so willing to pander to the Suburbanites as they would be able to create surface ROWs.

There is no excuse for the city to be providing high capacity fully segregated transit to the furthest reaches of the suburbs before ensuring the city proper can move people.

The Confederation line would have served us much better if it had continued from the Rideau Centre to St Laurent via Rideau/Montreal and then down St Laurent to the current alignement heading east. But even this leaves major flaws in the transit scheme.

The city should start to realize that a one trick pony can only do one trick, not two or three and that we need maybe two or three more one trick ponies to cover what they want.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Well, removing that lane and those parking spots would not be in the best interest of the Suburbanites, so doubtful that will happen. Streetcars have the exact same issues that busses have. Surface LRT would work if the city wasnt always so willing to pander to the Suburbanites as they would be able to create surface ROWs.

There is no excuse for the city to be providing high capacity fully segregated transit to the furthest reaches of the suburbs before ensuring the city proper can move people.

The Confederation line would have served us much better if it had continued from the Rideau Centre to St Laurent via Rideau/Montreal and then down St Laurent to the current alignement heading east. But even this leaves major flaws in the transit scheme.

The city should start to realize that a one trick pony can only do one trick, not two or three and that we need maybe two or three more one trick ponies to cover what they want.

You know that they will likely build 3rd line in the future? Maybe that line will help solve some of the problems you see.

Right now the LRT is running in such a way that most of the old Transitway line from out afar to downtown is covered.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sounds about the level of demand for the white elephant Trillium Line. I guess it was a mistake from day one.

The "upgrade" was probably a mistake, but the initial project cost $21M and ran close to capacity, so I would argue it was a good value. A Montreal Road subway would cost billions and run way below capacity, so I don't think that would be a good value (100x the cost, same number of passengers). If Vanier had a disused rail line that was already grade separated I would totally support an o-train type project.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Well, removing that lane and those parking spots would not be in the best interest of the Suburbanites, so doubtful that will happen. Streetcars have the exact same issues that busses have. Surface LRT would work if the city wasnt always so willing to pander to the Suburbanites as they would be able to create surface ROWs.

.

I'm not sure suburbanites care about parking spots on Montreal Road. Usually the biggest opponents of removing parking spots are BIAs (look what happened when the city wanted to put bike lanes on Somerset) and urban residents (look how hard those condo owners on Laurier fought the bike lanes).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The "upgrade" was probably a mistake, but the initial project cost $21M and ran close to capacity, so I would argue it was a good value. A Montreal Road subway would cost billions and run way below capacity, so I don't think that would be a good value (100x the cost, same number of passengers). If Vanier had a disused rail line that was already grade separated I would totally support an o-train type project.

yes, I see your point. The cost would be enormous. This brings us back to some sort exclusive lane transit set up. Better than what we have today but far from subway costs.

Of course, we did have a rail line that cut through the middle of Vanier. Too bad, we threw everything away 50 years ago in the name of building more roads. So many opportunities lost because we were in such a rush to abandon railways in Ottawa. All we saw was ugly railways and industry and we made choices on repurposes them that are looking more short sighted all the time.