Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We are seeing that it isn't real when there is little room to re-invest in neighbourhood transit from the operational savings. One of the reasons given is that we have to repay the debt on the capital expenditures. If we save $50M per year on operations but we spent $5B + interest to achieve that saving, how long does it take to pay that debt off? That suggests 100+ years when considering interest on the debt. Even considering the city's share of Phase 1, at $900M + interest, we are talking about at least 15 years to recover that cost. I am not saying we shouldn't be investing in rail, the tunnel etc., but operational savings are oversold.

The savings from LRT will be up to 100 million per year and those savings will grow per year, so you are looking at the LRT paying for itself in 9 years which will give OC Transpo enough funds to improve transit where its needed.

You are sounding way too pessimistic for a line that hasn't even opened yet.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

The savings from LRT will be up to 100 million per year and those savings will grow per year, so you are looking at the LRT paying for itself in 9 years which will give OC Transpo enough funds to improve transit where its needed.

You are sounding way too pessimistic for a line that hasn't even opened yet.

This all started when a car driver used an indirect route to get to work in a snowstorm and still got to work faster than would be possible by transit.

My response (and we know it is true) was that our transit plans are not about bringing better transit to the population at large, rather to plan for people to move to next to transit. Only a small minority will want to do this.

We have had to put up with 5+ years of transit disruption and now we need to wait another 10 years before we can expect to see any significant improvements in local transit, while that entire time will also have further transit disruption of varying degrees.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The operational savings are not real because of the several billion in investment to achieve those savings. How long will it take to pay off the capital cost from those operational savings? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?

Strawman. Nobody ever said they built it all solely for operating cost reductions. The key driver for an LRT tunnel through the core was the removal of a capacity constraint imposed by the BRT system. The operational cost savings are a great positive outcome for OC Transpo and will help make them more financially sustainable.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Strawman. Nobody ever said they built it all solely for operating cost reductions. The key driver for an LRT tunnel through the core was the removal of a capacity constraint imposed by the BRT system. The operational cost savings are a great positive outcome for OC Transpo and will help make them more financially sustainable.

If the operational costs are so great, then why are fares going up while the quality of service deteriorates?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

If the operational costs are so great, then why are fares going up while the quality of service deteriorates?

1) Because the LRT isn't in operation yet.

2) The cost savings of the LRT aren't enough to offset a lot of other issues driving up cost from the cost of fuel and labour to service demand.

You are seeing the effects of sprawl first hand. Rail investment can't keep up with how far the city's suburban boundaries are growing. And despite the central corridor starting to be addressed (with the Confederation Line), we'll continue to face tons of demand for feeder buses in the suburbs. And shuttling around 50 pax at a time on a bus, with an operator who makes a living wage isn't exactly very efficient.

Why do you think I keep railing against sprawl? It's a losing battle for transit if the settled area boundary keep pushing outward.

[J.OT13]

Even when it comes to cost, OC Transpo can't compete.

Transit passes and single trips are so expensive, it's cheaper to drive or take an Uber as soon as two people share a trip.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Even when it comes to cost, OC Transpo can't compete.

Transit passes and single trips are so expensive, it's cheaper to drive or take an Uber as soon as two people share a trip.

Only true, if parking is free. Something which doesn't really apply for a lot of the downtown core.

[H>T&T>P]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Even when it comes to cost, OC Transpo can't compete.

Transit passes and single trips are so expensive, it's cheaper to drive or take an Uber as soon as two people share a trip.

Just fuel for me would be more than my Monthly pass.

Fuel / Month $120
Parking / Month $90 and up

Not including oil changes and windshield washer fluid I would pay $100/ per month more than my $117 bus pass. It is hard to argue with single day passes as well but if you have 2 people traveling then the car is probably best.

[J.OT13]

Very few bus routes go beyond the built up area, which is about the same size as Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. The handful of buses serving the rural areas at rush hour don't justify $10 to $30+ premium.

If the City is too big, they need to introduce a zone based system, which we sort of had with express and rural passes in the past. Alternatively, as I mentioned, introducing a park and ride charge could subsidize lower fares.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Very few bus routes go beyond the built up area, which is about the same size as Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. The handful of buses serving the rural areas at rush hour don't justify $10 to $30+ premium.

If the City is too big, they need to introduce a zone based system, which we sort of had with express and rural passes in the past. Alternatively, as I mentioned, introducing a park and ride charge could subsidize lower fares.

But none of those cities have a huge greenbelt that forces buses travel long distances without collecting a fare so yeah that would explain why ottawa has higher fares, I agree getting rid of zone fares was stupid but a park and ride charge is not the answer, a congestion charge is.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

But none of those cities have a huge greenbelt that forces buses travel long distances without collecting a fare so yeah that would explain why ottawa has higher fares, I agree getting rid of zone fares was stupid but a park and ride charge is not the answer, a congestion charge is.

I don't think that really can explain that huge a discrepancy.

All cities have dead zones their transit vehicles cross through where there are no pick-ups. Crossing the Greenbelt is generally a short distance (1-3 km) and done at a speed (80 kmh) that is a lot more fuel efficient than doing the stop and go on urban roads and streets.

The real culprit for Ottawa's expensive transit fares (relative to places like Montreal and Gatineau, anyway) is likely provincial funding levels. Which would also explain why Toronto is expensive too.

[J.OT13]

One could argue that Mount Royal increases travel distance in Montreal so they would need to raise fares.

Greenbelt isn't that significant. It's just a couple kilometers of highway driving. A good chunk of that traveling will be replaced by trains within the next 5-10 years (yes more maintenance, but not that much).

In terms of size of urban area, Ottawa is roughly 20 km by 44 km, Edmonton is about 27 km by 30 km and Calgary 36 km by 21 km. Ottawa covers a little more distance end to end because of the Greenbelt but the city itself is denser.

Just like Truenorth00's $5 parking tax per spot per day anywhere inside the Greenbelt, you're putting the cart before the horse with the congestion charge. Before any of that can happen, you need a proper rapid transit system serving the entire city. That's why it works in those European and Asian cities. Many of them are significantly larger than us, therefore have a congestion problem. When driving is faster than transit, there is no congestion problem.

Zone based fares or park-and-ride charges ensure that those who live in the suburbs, beyond that Greenbelt, pay more in order to reduce costs for those who choose to live in the city. That's where we should start and not jump the gun to parking taxes all over or congestion charges.

When the O-Train reaches Barrhaven and Kanata, then we could talk about a congestion charge for those who commute from the big three suburbs to downtown. A rush hour only congestion charge.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

One could argue that Mount Royal increases travel distance in Montreal so they would need to raise fares.

Greenbelt isn't that significant. It's just a couple kilometers of highway driving. A good chunk of that traveling will be replaced by trains within the next 5-10 years (yes more maintenance, but not that much).

In terms of size of urban area, Ottawa is roughly 20 km by 44 km, Edmonton is about 27 km by 30 km and Calgary 36 km by 21 km. Ottawa covers a little more distance end to end because of the Greenbelt but the city itself is denser.

Just like Truenorth00's $5 parking tax per spot per day anywhere inside the Greenbelt, you're putting the cart before the horse with the congestion charge. Before any of that can happen, you need a proper rapid transit system serving the entire city. That's why it works in those European and Asian cities. Many of them are significantly larger than us, therefore have a congestion problem. When driving is faster than transit, there is no congestion problem.

Zone based fares or park-and-ride charges ensure that those who live in the suburbs, beyond that Greenbelt, pay more in order to reduce costs for those who choose to live in the city. That's where we should start and not jump the gun to parking taxes all over or congestion charges.

When the O-Train reaches Barrhaven and Kanata, then we could talk about a congestion charge for those who commute from the big three suburbs to downtown. A rush hour only congestion charge.

Park and ride charges will only encourage people to drive and Zone based fares were already scrapped so i have no idea why this is being brought up again, there is no way the city will reinstate those fares.
European cities have much better urban planning than Ottawa does. Stockholm Sweden which has similar size in population like Ottawa has a congestion charge and it works fine there. There is no reason why Ottawa shouldn't impliment the same thing especially when there are concerns about the environment and the impending carbon taxes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

European cities have much better urban planning than Ottawa does. Stockholm Sweden which has similar size in population like Ottawa has a congestion charge and it works fine there. There is no reason why Ottawa shouldn't impliment the same thing especially when there are concerns about the environment and the impending carbon taxes.

You said it yourself: European cities have far better planning. This includes Stockholm.

That better planning and a bunch of other factors allow the congestion charge to work well there.

I am generally willing to give these things a shot but I am skeptical of its suitability for a city like Ottawa (at least at this point in its history) and the use of Stockholm as an example that proves it would work.

Stockholm has a number of factors that give it a much higher degree of attractivity and unavoidability, compared to Ottawa.

For starters the area where the charge is in effect is not only the downtown of the capital, it's also the downtown of the largest city in the country. For Swedes it's arguably downtown Toronto and downtown Ottawa rolled into one. Most of the mostest of the most that happens in that country happens there. It's also a totally complete downtown from A to Z. OTOH downtown Ottawa doesn't even have a hospital or a first-run movie theatre.

Don't get me wrong - I think Ottawa is a pretty darn good downtown for a North American city. But it's not strong enough IMO to take the risk of a congestion charge and the impact it might have on driving people away from it.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You said it yourself: European cities have far better planning. This includes Stockholm.

That better planning and a bunch of other factors allow the congestion charge to work well there.

I am generally willing to give these things a shot but I am skeptical of its suitability for a city like Ottawa (at least at this point in its history) and the use of Stockholm as an example that proves it would work.

Stockholm has a number of factors that give it a much higher degree of attractivity and unavoidability, compared to Ottawa.

For starters the area where the charge is in effect is not only the downtown of the capital, it's also the downtown of the largest city in the country. For Swedes it's arguably downtown Toronto and downtown Ottawa rolled into one. Most of the mostest of the most that happens in that country happens there. It's also a totally complete downtown from A to Z. OTOH downtown Ottawa doesn't even have a hospital or a first-run movie theatre.

Don't get me wrong - I think Ottawa is a pretty darn good downtown for a North American city. But it's not strong enough IMO to take the risk of a congestion charge and the impact it might have on driving people away from it.

This is what I find is the problem with people who live in Ottawa-Gatineau, we all want the type of transit systems that European cities have and yet we are not willing to do exact things that those European cities do that enables a good transit system.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

This is what I find is the problem with people who live in Ottawa-Gatineau, we all want the type of transit systems that European cities have and yet we are not willing to do exact things that those European cities do that enables a good transit system.

It would be akin to switching everyone over to electric vehicles without having a network of charging stations in place. The cart before the horse.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

This is what I find is the problem with people who live in Ottawa-Gatineau, we all want the type of transit systems that European cities have and yet we are not willing to do exact things that those European cities do that enables a good transit system.

In European cities, the transit system came first. As Acajack said, you can't put the cart before the horse.

Just look at Stockholm. How many rail lines do they have and how many enter the downtown area? How many does Ottawa have today entering downtown? How many will Ottawa have in 20 years?

If we want congestion fees, an alternative needs to exist and be accessible from all parts of the city with minimal hassle.

We have already been told. We should not expect more than the Confederation Line in our lifetimes. Ottawa cannot afford more than one line. At least, based on our current priorities. It appears that our priorities will maintain a 70 to 80% private vehicle modal share. There is really no political will to do better than that. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be laying off 300 bus drivers. Instead, we would re-purpose them strategically to try to increase ridership.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

This is what I find is the problem with people who live in Ottawa-Gatineau, we all want the type of transit systems that European cities have and yet we are not willing to do exact things that those European cities do that enables a good transit system.

Not only that, if you, as the local government or a developer in Ottawa, dare propose anything that would remotely make Ottawa more like a European city, people lose their shit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Stockholm has a number of factors that give it a much higher degree of attractivity and unavoidability, compared to Ottawa.

For starters the area where the charge is in effect is not only the downtown of the capital, it's also the downtown of the largest city in the country. For Swedes it's arguably downtown Toronto and downtown Ottawa rolled into one. Most of the mostest of the most that happens in that country happens there. It's also a totally complete downtown from A to Z. OTOH downtown Ottawa doesn't even have a hospital or a first-run movie theatre.

Not quite apples:apples, but the biggest factor in the Ottawa:Stockholm comparison, like almost any other comparison of a North American and European city, is population density: even after hiving off the rural townships of Ottawa, the population density of the "urban" portion of Ottawa is half that of metro Stockholm.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Greenbelt isn't that significant. It's just a couple kilometers of highway driving.

Multiplied by thousands of runs of buses per day; those zero-revenue vehicle-miles on the Orleans, Kanata, and Barrhaven Greenbelt-crossing routes add up PDQ.