2023 Transportation Master Plan

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

The population density map shows that inner suburbs are no denser than Barrhaven, many are even less.

https://censusmapper.ca/maps/591#12/45.3310/-75.7157

That just tells us that they need to stop sprawl and direct development inward. I do agree that Ottawa is remarkably sparse for a city.

That said, you can't have high transit usage without frequency. And without high bus usage, you can't support higher order transit. Or rather, it's extraordinarily wasteful to do so. If Ottawa doesn't want to densify and build a proper bus network, we don't deserve provincial and federal dollars for higher order transit.

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That just tells us that they need to stop sprawl and direct development inward. I do agree that Ottawa is remarkably sparse for a city.

That said, you can't have high transit usage without frequency. And without high bus usage, you can't support higher order transit. Or rather, it's extraordinarily wasteful to do so. If Ottawa doesn't want to densify and build a proper bus network, we don't deserve provincial and federal dollars for higher order transit.

Totally agree, but let's be realistic, we're a minority here on Skyscraperpage. Most people still believe in the American dream.

[Badlands]

I have a quick question about the transit line planned along Carling Avenue. The Transportation Master Plan implies it is to be a street car. Does this mean that it would use different vehicles from the ones on the Confederation Line? If so, has the City discussed the location of the maintenance and storage garage?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Totally agree, but let's be realistic, we're a minority here on Skyscraperpage. Most people still believe in the American dream.

That's fine. But then the province and feds shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars here.

Personally, I think federal and provincial transit investment should be tied very strictly to density targets. And demonstrated investment in bus service. Building a rail network to be fed by 30 min bus service is just ridiculous.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Badlands

I have a quick question about the transit line planned along Carling Avenue. The Transportation Master Plan implies it is to be a street car. Does this mean that it would use different vehicles from the ones on the Confederation Line? If so, has the City discussed the location of the maintenance and storage garage?

It could, in theory, use the same LRVs as the Confederation Line, probably not paired though. I don't think they've said anything about a maintenance and storage facility. But then, I don't think Carling as LRT was set in stone.

[J.OT13]

That's an interesting question; where would we build rail yards for a Carling streetcar? Neilson Dairy would have been a logical spot IMO, but that's no longer available.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Badlands

I have a quick question about the transit line planned along Carling Avenue. The Transportation Master Plan implies it is to be a street car. Does this mean that it would use different vehicles from the ones on the Confederation Line? If so, has the City discussed the location of the maintenance and storage garage?

Completely unconfirmed and take the following statement at hearsay

"Its likely going to be BRT and its not likely to be ready for quotes until 2050, excluding a drastic change in both density build out & or provincial/federal funding."

Also, as J.ot13 stated, I also think (assuming LRT) the Nielson Dairy would have been the logical location, but bar that, if they were to use the same vehicle as the confederation line they could just connect in at lincoln fields and use an expanded moodie building.

or more realistically a heavy expansion of the clyde ave yards.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Convenience is the key here. The only way transit will ever be competitive with driving is if you could access a reasonable amount of destinations, in a reasonable time frame, at a reasonable cost.

As it stands, our transit system doesn't really meet any of these criteria except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. you live walking distance to the Confederation Line).

I think the city has done an admirable job at getting commuters onto transit and out of cars so far. However, there definitely needs to be improvements to increase ridership for non-commuting trips.

This is truth. And I will add, improvements for non-downtown job destinations.

While we spend billions on an almost completely downtown-centric rapid transit system, our city's job market is decentralizing at even a faster pace than ever. There is no clearer evidence than the thousands of Amazon jobs being created in transit deserts at Carlsbad and the fringe of Barrhaven. And while we encourage more and more residential intensification in the city centre (which I am not opposed to), more and more often, those residents will be commuting to a non-downtown job, creating reverse commutes that we cannot afford to service with transit. So road congestion just keeps getting worse everywhere.

It is true that it is easier to cut bus service, because the facts are lost in the details. This allows politicians to get away with this. Only on implementation, does the public ire get raised but then it is already too late as we have seen with previous service cuts.

Improving service frequency is only part of the answer, because as we encourage more and more intensification, traffic gets worse, which equally affects transit. This is why on key routes, more and more transit priority measures are needed. Transit can only become attractive if it is fairly competitive time-wise to a private vehicle. 1.5 hour commutes on transit will simply not be attractive to anybody other than the most desperate.

Just look at what is happening in Montreal and Toronto. Most of the new lines being built are segregated or semi-segregated. To move people faster, frequency is simply not enough, but in Ottawa, we have chosen to do nothing beyond the Confederation Line and the Trillium Line. Why? Because Confederation Line is consuming most of our transit investment. For some, the Confederation and Trillium Line will be a benefit, but as we have seen, it doesn't really deliver faster service to the majority of Ottawa residents who have to travel beyond these two lines at one or both ends of their trip.

But the financial cupboard is bare, especially the way the pandemic has clobbered transit. We will be lucky if we get back to 60% ridership in 2022 and that means service cuts are inevitable. And those service cuts will affect bus riders the most.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It could, in theory, use the same LRVs as the Confederation Line, probably not paired though. I don't think they've said anything about a maintenance and storage facility. But then, I don't think Carling as LRT was set in stone.

It would probably be cheaper to build a short spur connecting to the Confederation Line and use the existing maintenance facilities.

I guess one advantage of building a metro with trams is they can also use them as trams.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Personally, I think federal and provincial transit investment should be tied very strictly to density targets. And demonstrated investment in bus service. Building a rail network to be fed by 30 min bus service is just ridiculous.

I think that’s a good idea. It might motivate municipalities to get their shit together.

[acottawa]

I think the emphasis should be on townhouses. Most middle class Ottawa residents will not live in a condo long-term (reserving it for starter home, post divorce or empty nest scenario, etc.) You can fit 3-4 townhouses in a typical suburban bungalow, but currently this can only happen in high-end neighbourhoods where people can afford to spend hundreds of thousands on paperwork.

[acottawa]

An average homeowner in Ottawa already pays $900 ($158 for ever 100k of assessment) for OCTranso, even though only 20% of the city commute by transit (before time, probably much lower now). Any hopes of doubling, tripling or quadrupling bus service without more riders is a complete fantasy.

To me Amazon locating in the middle of nowhere is a huge failure by various levels of government. There should have been a concerted effort to locate the warehouse somewhere feasible to provide good transit.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me Amazon locating in the middle of nowhere is a huge failure by various levels of government. There should have been a concerted effort to locate the warehouse somewhere feasible to provide good transit.

Same thing for Calypso waterpark.
Same thing for Canadian Tire Center arena.

[Acajack]

Calypso is outside Ottawa city limits, so the city had little control over that. Unless one feels that the city should have done more to entice them to build within its limits.

The argument regarding Amazon is that if Ottawa had not allowed them to build at Boundary, they would have gone a few km further out into Russell Township, and the tax dollars would have been lost to the city.

Ultimately maybe it should be the province that has some oversight or at least exerts some leadership on such things. Otherwise the Amazons of the world simply shop themselves around to municipalities in order to get the best deal and a blank cheque to do whatever they want. Many U.S. metros in this respect are especially badly planned and laid out due to the patchwork of small municipalities that fight it out over who can bend over backwards to allow the least urbanistically desirable and most lax deal to investors.

In my observation the places in the world with the most attractive and dynamic urban areas tend to be where higher levels of government (regional or sub-national or national) play a role in what and where you can build, and what you can't.

[J.OT13]

For the Amazon Distribution Centres, they need to be near a highway, and better a bit out of the city to reduce the number of large semis clogging our streets. For the one in Barrhaven, it's near mixed-use developments so a good bus service is justified.

Waterparks take up huge swaths of land and are only open a few months a year, so again, they need to be outside the urban area. Having some bus shuttles (like Gatineau Park) could be a good alternative but ultimately, people prefer to drive to those types of destinations. At least those cars are usually packed with people, and not single occupancy like most commuters.

As for the CTC, for sure a downtown location near Bayview would be far better, but it's still possible with the special bus service to get their on transit efficiently, more so than driving (even from Orleans I'd argue, based on my experience).

[Truenorth00]

I don't think it's theme parks and logistics facilities that are preventing Ottawa from densifying.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For the Amazon Distribution Centres, they need to be near a highway, and better a bit out of the city to reduce the number of large semis clogging our streets. For the one in Barrhaven, it's near mixed-use developments so a good bus service is justified.

Even for the one on Boundary Rd., I'm sure there is demand for a couple of trips at each shift change. The fact that the city agreed to provide financial incentives to Amazon without any agreement for Amazon to fund transit service was a failure IMO.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Even for the one on Boundary Rd., I'm sure there is demand for a couple of trips at each shift change. The fact that the city agreed to provide financial incentives to Amazon without any agreement for Amazon to fund transit service was a failure IMO.

This is the way of the future. Jobs are offered with low pay and low benefits. We have seen in the past how mushroom farms out in the boonies have offered private transit to their employees, but Amazon has such clout that offering transit directly or indirectly to their employees is out of the question and the city has become so cash strapped that they don't want to do it either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For the Amazon Distribution Centres, they need to be near a highway, and better a bit out of the city to reduce the number of large semis clogging our streets. For the one in Barrhaven, it's near mixed-use developments so a good bus service is justified.

Waterparks take up huge swaths of land and are only open a few months a year, so again, they need to be outside the urban area. Having some bus shuttles (like Gatineau Park) could be a good alternative but ultimately, people prefer to drive to those types of destinations. At least those cars are usually packed with people, and not single occupancy like most commuters.

As for the CTC, for sure a downtown location near Bayview would be far better, but it's still possible with the special bus service to get their on transit efficiently, more so than driving (even from Orleans I'd argue, based on my experience).

These are good points, though there is still too much white collar employment and retail that are allowed to get built in auto-dependent, non-transit greenfields outside our cities.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Toronto has a population density of 4334/km2 (inside city limits). The Ottawa-Gatineau urban area has a population density of 1900/km²,

That's a silly comparison, the map shows all of Cantley, down to Manotick and Cumberland Estates in the Urban area... totally wrong, and also parts of Greenbelt. Furthermore the Airport is in Ottawa but not in "Toronto"

You are comparing the inner urban area of a Metro city with population in the range of 7million vs Ottawa, of course as cities get bigger the inner regions will become more valuable - therefore more dense

A more useful comparison would be density inside greenbelt vs Toronto city proper... but even that is apples and oranges

Ottawa is more dense than Calgary or Edmonton (similar size cities) and pretty close to same densities as major German cities like Cologne and Hamburg