Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The additional benefits of going underground include wider sidewalks with the possibility of sidewalk cafes and new cycle tracks. We can't have that with the reasonable expectation of business access (no BIA in their right mind would allow the closure of Bank Street to regular traffic) and a tram ROW.

That's my thinking as well. I'd like to see Bank get redone to allow for wider sidewalks so restaurants can set up patios in the summer months. Maybe something like the Grande Allee could make road space more flexible, where parking lanes can be repaved with interlocking stone that allow parking near businesses who insist on having it, and putting up bollards in front of restaurants to provide space for both patios and pedestrians in the summer months.

Of course, we could get rid of cars entirely and put a tram on those 2 lanes instead, but as you said, I can't see businesses or Glebe residents signing off on that, and they're the two biggest stakeholder groups in the area.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I will just point out that there not being car access on Rideau was far from the main cause of its commercial decline. To disregard elements like the construction of the Rideau Centre itself and the decline of urban retail generally in that era is an almost willful oversight. Rideau was transit-only in 2014-2020, and saw a resurgence of retail and pedestrian activity despite construction. Not necessarily because it was only transit vehicles, but more to illustrate that the composition of vehicular traffic isn't an important factor of retail success. When you really think about it, how much do the dozen street parking spaces matter to the twenty-odd businesses west of Dalhousie? How much of H&M's business can possibly come from people parked in the 2 spaces in front of the store who'd have otherwise not gone but for those two spaces? The more you think about it, the more implausible it becomes.

This is the same old debate we see everywhere.

I saw it in Toronto when they did St. Clair. "It's going to kill business to get rid of parking!" "We need the visibility." Go back there now and not one merchant will tell you they want the parking spots back.

I would think people would understand this intuitively. Whenever you go shopping, you're likely out walking in a mall or walking a particularly street. When was the last time you drove down a street to find a store.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I will just point out that there not being car access on Rideau was far from the main cause of its commercial decline. To disregard elements like the construction of the Rideau Centre itself and the decline of urban retail generally in that era is an almost willful oversight. Rideau was transit-only in 2014-2020, and saw a resurgence of retail and pedestrian activity despite construction. Not necessarily because it was only transit vehicles, but more to illustrate that the composition of vehicular traffic isn't an important factor of retail success. When you really think about it, how much do the dozen street parking spaces matter to the twenty-odd businesses west of Dalhousie? How much of H&M's business can possibly come from people parked in the 2 spaces in front of the store who'd have otherwise not gone but for those two spaces? The more you think about it, the more implausible it becomes.

True, that there were many issues that relate to the 1980s decline of Rideau Street businesses, but the design of the transit mall was terrible and was a significant contributor as was the almost 100% inward design of the Rideau Centre. It took decades to recover from the decisions made in the 1980s.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That's my thinking as well. I'd like to see Bank get redone to allow for wider sidewalks so restaurants can set up patios in the summer months. Maybe something like the Grande Allee could make road space more flexible, where parking lanes can be repaved with interlocking stone that allow parking near businesses who insist on having it, and putting up bollards in front of restaurants to provide space for both patios and pedestrians in the summer months.

Good to see we have a similar vision for Bank St. But I don't see how you can build something like that at all and rely on Bank still being a major thoroughfare (likely outcome with a subway). This works in Quebec City, because they made a concerted effort to direct traffic (other than local) away from there (on to Rene Levesque).

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Of course, we could get rid of cars entirely and put a tram on those 2 lanes instead, but as you said, I can't see businesses or Glebe residents signing off on that, and they're the two biggest stakeholder groups in the area.

Indeed. An extra billion to bury the line. The NIMBY tax.

I think the smart businesses might understand how much the extra foot traffic in a pedestrianized transit mall would help them.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is the same old debate we see everywhere.

I saw it in Toronto when they did St. Clair. "It's going to kill business to get rid of parking!" "We need the visibility." Go back there now and not one merchant will tell you they want the parking spots back.

I would think people would understand this intuitively. Whenever you go shopping, you're likely out walking in a mall or walking a particularly street. When was the last time you drove down a street to find a store.

Countless times. Also, to familiarize oneself with the location of businesses. I didn't know that business was there. I must go there sometime.

This is not so much about parking in front of the store (although businesses do like that), but visibility to passers-by. You know the old saying, 'Out of sight, out of mind'.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Countless times. .....

Indeed. You've also said you haven't taken transit since 2019. Yet somehow you consider yourself pro-transit.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is not so much about parking in front of the store (although businesses do like that), but visibility to passers-by. You know the old saying, 'Out of sight, out of mind'.

You know what helps visibility? The almost order of magnitude more passengers that a streetcar lane can carry by their store than a car lane.

Somebody who actually cares about transit and doesn't go driving to look for a store might get this....

[lrt's friend]

Indeed. An extra billion to bury the line. The NIMBY tax.

I think he already addressed that. Perhaps you didn't read it.

It costs extra to double track the Trillium Line. It costs extra to extend Confederation Line platforms at all stations and buy more trains.

Why not invest that money into something that delivers real new and better service?

A better transit network with more connections will also generate more ridership and more revenue.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. You've also said you haven't taken transit since 2019. Yet somehow you consider yourself pro-transit.

I explained that, and you agreed many times in your own comments. The bus network needs to be better.

The Confederation Line has made transit use more difficult in off-peak hours in my part of the city, when I would most likely use it.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Any Bank St subway is coming long after that. Especially when you consider that over $10B will have been spent on the first three stages.

I suppose it depends on if Stage 3 gets entirely funded, but I get your point. I was thinking closer to 2050 if it ever gets funded and built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given that choice, I would choose the package.

1) Can be done piecemeal.
2) Adds to the walkability of Bank St. Including with a lot more surface stops.
3) Boosts frequency for both existing transit lines helping a lot more users.
4) Bank tram can be interlined with Trillium to provide downtown access.

The first point is well received and I partially agree with the second point in the sense that more transit stops would be a plus. Active transportation could be greatly improved with the light metro idea as well, though, through improved pedestrian and cycling facilities.

I also agree with the 3rd point for Trillium line frequency. The issue with 4th point is the fact that you'd need to convert the whole Trillium line to low floor LRT, which would require costly reconstruction of many stations. And so, I'm not so sure reconfiguring the whole Trillium line for interlining would ever be considered.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Really this comes down to whether you prioritize lots of spending for the few, or some spending for a lot of users. I see the former approach usually from folks who primarily drive to get around. So they get fixated on certain trips (airport access for example) or fixate on modes as a replacement for the car. That's not how transit usage works though. Good transit is generally frequency and coverage. And from that perspective, I don't see why spending the extra billion bucks to save somebody a few minutes on Bank in a Subway (while giving them fewer stops) is a good thing over using that same money so on making Bank more accessible on the street while also making all the existing transit lines more frequent and higher capacity.

In theory, I agree. I grew up in Westboro and we didn't have a family car, so I fully understand the value of high quality transit and active transportation facilities. I think where our opinions really differ is the feasibility of turning Bank into a transit mall, not because I don't personally like the idea, but because of the aforementioned lobbying from stakeholder groups.

I don't expect you to agree with me on this point, but that's my opinion on the matter, at least until something convinces me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hamilton is doing the same for their current LRT. There really isn't much different here. And I'm suggesting we go a step further and get rid of the traffic. Bank really should be something more like Elgin without the cars. But yes, it'll be a tough slog to convince people that we need to prioritize transit over cars and that it just isn't worthwhile to spend a billion dollars extra burying a line for a miniscule amount of road capacity to the core. Luckily, we've probably got 3-4 decades to have this discussion....

Fair enough. Honestly, I don't much about the Hamilton proposal and I'll have to do my due diligence on it before I comment. I know there are tram-only and in-median roadway sections, but I don't know to what extent it will be fully car-free.

I'll get back to you on that one.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I saw it in Toronto when they did St. Clair. "It's going to kill business to get rid of parking!" "We need the visibility." Go back there now and not one merchant will tell you they want the parking spots back.

Bank Street is not St. Clair. Isn't St. Clair wider than Bank, and also continues to allow regular traffic?

The Eglinton Crosstown in central Toronto was put underground because the right of way was not wide enough.

[Truenorth00]

I don't think Hamilton is car free. But King St over there is the same width as Bank St here. And it isn't stopping them from building a surface LRT.

Smaller cities are usually good like that. They don't have the luxury to blow a billion on tunneling because a few NIMBYs get butthurt.

[lrt's friend]

Didn't the Hamilton LRT project involve the expropriation of at least several properties where the street right of way was too constrained?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Eglinton Crosstown in central Toronto was put underground because the right of way was not wide enough.

This is what Eglinton looks like between Mount Pleasant and Yonge:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Au494EiUYoLewnHf9

Give me a target date on when you think Bank will have this kind of density. I'll make it easy. Just count it out in lifetimes.

They have more density along Eglinton than most of our downtown core. And yet they only partially tunneled the Crosstown and only built 60m stations.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think Hamilton is car free. But King St over there is the same width as Bank St here. And it isn't stopping them from building a surface LRT.

Smaller cities are usually good luck that. They don't have the luxury to blow a billion on tunneling because a few NIMBYs get butthurt.

Who cares about Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo for that matter. Those are more city building exercises rather than projects to move people faster.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Who cares about Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo for that matter. Those are more city building exercises rather than projects to move people faster.

You know this from your extensive use of transit in those cities?

At least you use transit somewhere I guess.....

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is what Eglinton looks like between Mount Pleasant and Yonge:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Au494EiUYoLewnHf9

Give me a target date on when you think Bank will have this kind of density. I'll make it easy. Just count it out in lifetimes.

They have more density along Eglinton than most of our downtown core. And yet they only partially tunneled the Crosstown and only built 60m stations.

Yes, within walking distance of the Yonge subway. The rest is not a whole lot different from Bank Street.

Yes, we don't need 120m stations.

As Hybrid247 pointed out, I am sure we would all like to see high floor trains interlined with the Trillium Line travelling down Bank Street, with their obtrusive stations blocking the narrow sidewalks.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You know this from your extensive use of transit in those cities?

At least you use transit somewhere I guess.....

Yes, I like car-free vacations. At least those cities make transit easier to use.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, I like car-free vacations. At least those cities make transit easier to use.

Hamilton with no LRT at all and KW with the kind of streetcar that you're opposing here is apparently better than what we have in Ottawa?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The current situation with the new Confederation Line and the again closed Trillium Line (and yes, there will be another lengthy closure in the future) is just fabulous when you have to deal with two transfers since the opening of the Confederation Line. No wonder I have not used transit from my home since it opened in 2019. It is too unreliable and unpredictable.

You haven't used transit since the Confederation Line opened. But somehow know it's unreliable and those cities are better (even with no LRT at all)?

The Bank St cult is looking better everyday....a true representation of actual transit users in this city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hamilton with no LRT at all and KW with the kind of streetcar that you're opposing here is apparently better than what we have in Ottawa?

I didn't say that, but Ottawa also is considerably bigger and has a more longstanding transit culture than either of those cities.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

True, that there were many issues that relate to the 1980s decline of Rideau Street businesses, but the design of the transit mall was terrible and was a significant contributor as was the almost 100% inward design of the Rideau Centre. It took decades to recover from the decisions made in the 1980s.

In some ways, it still hasn't.