Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Um, how do you come up with this? Commuter Rail assumes a handful (at most) central stations in the suburbs. How does this amount to one transfer? Or are we going to ask all suburbanites to take their car to the station? This is why commuter rail attracts so few riders in most cities. In the hundreds in some cases, in mid-sized cities. And then on top of that, we don't take them downtown as is the case in Montreal or Toronto. Even with the success of Go Transit in Toronto, there is poor integration with local transit. Basically, the draw is the poor traffic conditions and the distances travelling into central Toronto from Oakville or Oshawa.
|
In order...
1. I came up with this because if in Option 1 (O-Train converted), a transfer at Confederation (possible station) would get you on LRT heading north, and then east. If option 2, then you head east to Hurdman/Train Station and transfer there, heading downtown. This would not be uncommon, as Hurdman is a major transfer station. Either way, it's one transfer with the idea being to get people from the suburbs into the city core area quickly and en masse, where they can then make the (rather short) trip on LRT into the core.
2. I'd pretty much have two or three major stations in each major suburb.
3. Considering we already have plenty of suburbanites who bring their cars to numerous park and rides, I say we condense them (parking garage towers) and provide the en masse speedy transit that the people out there want.
4. Getting them downtown; I would love to see nothing more but we have ourselves to blame for lack of foresight. Ideally, if money were no object, I'd buy the damn Conference Centre from the Feds, build a tunnel (or expropriate from Colonel By), and convert the Centre back to a Train Station, but also make it the Central Bus Station so that there is a true transit hub right downtown.
5. Just because Go Transit doesn't integrate well with TTC doesn't mean we have to or will make the same mistake.
Quote:
|
I have said it before that existing rail will not deliver faster service than the existing Transitway system.
|
First off, nothing is ever truly certain. Secondly, you don't know until you try. Why not just have another pilot project or proof of concept project. We could even start super small; Fallowfield to Hurdman/Train Station, with maybe Confederation being the only other stop. Have them transfer onto BRT/LRT and see how much better it is, or how much worse it is.
Quote:
|
In addition, Ottawa is not big enough to have competing LRT and commuter rail systems.
|
Who says they have to be competing? They could be integral and work off one another.
Quote:
|
The success of LRT in the inner city is dependant on the number of passengers being fed into it from the suburbs, ultimately Orleans feeding into Blair Station. There is not a sufficient population base around any of the east end stations to support LRT on their own. They are notoriously badly located in relation to the neighbouring population base.
|
See, already you're line of thinking is showing part of what is wrong with planning in this city (and I don't mean this in an insulting or bad way, I just want to make light of it). We're trying to put enough stations for a large cache of ridership numbers across the city, but if it depends on numbers from the suburbs, then it needs to be fast. It's damn near impossible to do both! This is why I've come to believe that a commuter line (with express trains and collector trains) would be far more economical and efficient for the bulk of our suburban transit needs.
Quote:
|
If LRT is to operate for the inner city only with separate commuter rail to serve Orleans, it should run along Montreal Road where there is shopping, employment and numerous apartment buildings. I question the desirability of the locations along the proposed LRT line for intensification being right next to the Queensway. A western extension near the river is another question.
|
On this we agree, as I'd love to see a Rideau/Montreal/St. Laurent LRT line as part of my transit plan. However the current LRT plan is still adequate as Hurdman is a major transit/transfer station, and the train station brings you to regional travel opportunities as well as employment and shopping (albeit mostly car-oriented). Then you have a major shopping centre and transfer station in St. Laurent, and Blair. The ones that work the least (but still work to an extent) are Lees and Cyrville.
Quote:
|
In questioning the value of extending LRT into the suburbs, I first point out the lack of suitable rail lines for commuter rail. Orleans has none. The Stittsville example is highly unlikely to be resurrected.
|
So you take the lack of existing track for one major suburb, but condemn the other two, even though rail tracks exist and extent into, through, and past Kanata and Barrhaven...
Again, highly unlikely does not mean impossible and the ROW still exists, same goes for Orleans. Besides, this is the "Dream Transit Plan" thread.
Quote:
|
I then point out the most successful LRT system on the continent, the C-Train, where LRT is being pushed to the edges of the suburbs.
|
Calgary is a completely different city and situation. You can't simply compare the two. Also, how does one accurately determine "most successful?"
Additionally, Calgary's planning and development of LRT was so different to ours. They did a lot more right than we did and continue to do so. We've more or less made our bed, and now we've got to sleep in it.
Quote:
|
The problem I see is that we are treating our LRT system as if it was a subway. This is a mistake.
|
To an extent I agree, but our system is/will be rather unique as well.
Quote:
|
As I said, Ottawa is not big enough for parallel rail networks. I am all for using existing rail lines but with the understanding of their limitations, that they will only likely adequately offer cross-town service. And that is not a bad idea. I just read that a good part of Metrolinx`s strategy is to link suburbs together. As congestion increases in the suburbs and employment grows in the suburbs, this is where transit ridership growth opportunities exist.
|
And yet a fundamental part of our plan right now is to have a refurbished and improved O-Train serve alongside LRT and buses. I don't see our LRT being too different from current OC Transpo, so I'm relatively comfortable in thinking that if we can pull off O-Train/BRT (and by extension, O-Train/LRT), we can pull off LRT/some form of commuter rail.
As for suburban growth, great! But the inner city is also going to grow and people are still going to need to get around the entire city. Seeing as how our suburbs love roads and cars, buses would be most effective in these areas at present, especially with so much space between them.
Quote:
|
Regardless of certain hot spots for intensification at Carling & Preston, the Byward Market and Westboro, most of the inner city has declining household sizes and aging populations where transit ridership is declining or flat. The suburbs are where younger families are located, which means ridership potential.
|
1. Those aren't the only hot spots, and a quick glance at the development thread and rumour thread demonstrates this.
2. Declining household sizes does not always equate to declining population, as we're seeing more people living within the Greenbelt and increased redevelopment and intensification.
3. If that were the case, why are all manner of local buses (i.e. those than run within the inner city and inside the greenbelt) packed at almost all times of day? Additionally, things like increased walkability and new and improved bike lanes could also "help".
4. Yes, young families are in the suburbs and yes, that means ridership potential. However, just because potential exists does not mean it can be realized. While there certainly is ridership potential in the suburbs, they are still very much bedroom communities, or communities with attractions that practically demand car use, and car culture is still a big thing there. I don't see that changing any time soon as the populace there generally WANTS it to remain that way, and the councilors who represent them are not exactly going to be going against their constituent unless they really have to, which is almost never since they're supposed to represent their constituents.
Quote:
|
We need to look at the city as a whole and end this suburban versus inner city superiority debate.
|
I'm not talking about inner city vs. outer city, or any kind of superiority. I'm merely trying to find a cost-effective, efficient, and unique way of solving our most pressing transit issues. It's also about what is warranted, versus what is wanted.
Quote:
|
The fact of the matter is that the lowest density suburbs are actually located inside the Greenbelt. Many areas can barely support hourly bus service, let alone a whole web of LRT lines, without supporting suburban passengers.
|
That's really easy to say when they are A) fewer in number B) naturally smaller in size and therefore population C) often less-affluent and D) older.
Prev
Linear Mode
