Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[J.OT13]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the Province has "approved", or in other words "endorsed" two completed EAs: the one to Moodie and the second to Kanata/Stittsville. Basically, this is no news at all. Just politicians re-announcing something that's already complete. Something that was actually funded and performed by the previous government.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the Province has "approved", or in other words "endorsed" two completed EAs: the one to Moodie and the second to Kanata/Stittsville. Basically, this is no news at all. Just politicians re-announcing something that's already complete. Something that was actually funded and performed by the previous government.

This is my understanding, and / or that its an announcement that the final copies of these EA reports are complete and approved.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As we convert the Transitways to LRT, we are not really improving the transit commute much. This is the flaw in our plans and always has been since the decision was made to convert bus rapid transit to LRT. For the several billion that we are putting into it, we are getting very little benefit. It is really just heading off the downtown congestion issue and that is about it. With the exception of downtown congestion, buses will travel just as fast as trains.

If all we cared about was avoiding congestion downtown, we could run the train from Bayview to Hurdman and convert the Trillium Line to BRT. Having such a short line doesn't feel very satisfying as a rider. Even if the extensions don't make it any faster for most, it feels better.

Also, trains are much more reliable in inclement weather. Many of the problems are downtown, but getting the trains closer to where people live will allow the buses to be more reliable (and efficient as they are spending less time deadheading).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't expect this is going to convince many car drivers to switch, simply because we are not getting new improved transit routes over what we had with the busways.

You are assuming that is the city's primary objective. In reality it is saving money in operating costs. It is much cheaper to run 1 train than the 8-10 buses it replaces. Right now, between the 3 major suburbs, there are thousands of buses a day running through the geenbelt, once the LRT is extended to those suburbs, they will be replaced by a few hundred (when added together) trains. That is ignoring the savings of having them electrically powered (without the need to charge batteries).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

LRT is really about moving people to the rapid transit route, a planning policy, rather than bringing better transit to the people.

As I said above, it is actually about saving money (and providing more reliable service).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Our City Council has failed to understand the shortcomings of what they are doing. Meanwhile, we continue to plan new and better roads all over the city. The end result is we are continuing to encourage more people to drive.

I think the city is assuming (rightly or wrongly) that transit only good at transporting people from suburb to downtown and back suburb to suburb transport will be best served by cars. As I have said before, getting LRT to the suburbs will actually also help some of the suburb to suburb transport.

Originally Posted by CityTech

The Confederation Line should just be a single line from Blair to Baseline. The Bayshore/Moodie spur and the extension to Orleans are unnecessary and offer no real improvement over Transitway service. Instead of spending money on those, we should build more BRT lines like the one we're supposed to be getting on Baseline; maybe put similar lines on Merivale, Carling, and Saint Laurent.

As I said above, the big benefit of punching the LRT through the Greenbelt is replacing thousands of buses a day driving along the same route with a few hundred trains a day. That is good for both the city's pocket book and the environment. It will also mean direct service to the park and rides, meaning a significant improvement in service for those who use them (especially valuable off peak, when connecting bus service is poor).

As for the split to Bayshore/Moodie, there currently are no bus lanes between Pinecrest and the Transitway, so buses get stuck in traffic. That, combined with the confederation line using a shorter route, will result in real time savings.

[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?

[OtrainUser]

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?

Not real? Less bus drivers, less busses, shorter routes all outweigh the capital costs for the train which is why they did it in the first place. I get it the the train means at least one transfer for you and alot of people which is probably why you dont like it but it is false to say it will take 50 years or even a century to recoup the costs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Not real? Less bus drivers, less busses, shorter routes all outweigh the capital costs for the train which is why they did it in the first place. I get it the the train means at least one transfer for you and alot of people which is probably why you dont like it but it is false to say it will take 50 years or even a century to recoup the costs.

And don't forget the cost of snow plowing and salting. Trains are largely self plowing where as buses need bare pavement to operate at full speed. Does anyone know how much is typically spent to clear the transitways and dedicated bus lanes?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Not real? Less bus drivers, less busses, shorter routes all outweigh the capital costs for the train which is why they did it in the first place. I get it the the train means at least one transfer for you and alot of people which is probably why you dont like it but it is false to say it will take 50 years or even a century to recoup the costs.

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.

[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.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

Other than in the most congested cities, it is difficult for local transit to match the speed and convenience of a personal vehicle. If that is your objective, you are fighting a loosing battle. Where transit can compete is in cost.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Other than in the most congested cities, it is difficult for local transit to match the speed and convenience of a personal vehicle. If that is your objective, you are fighting a loosing battle. Where transit can compete is in cost.

I don't expect transit to match the speed of personal vehicles. What I am looking for is an improvement in competitiveness. In other words, when we invest a lot of capital in transit, we would want to see an improvement in speed, not just maintaining the status quo.

There is a problem when we look at only cost competitiveness. Once a vehicle is purchased, most only look at the cost of operating the vehicle, rather than total costs. Sunk costs and even maintenance are excluded as they are assumed to be fixed. This is why high parking costs, which are effectively operating costs of a vehicle are so effective in convincing people to switch to transit.

If we are going to spend a pile of money on transit, we need to make travel easier to more locations. This will encourage people to consider transit for more trips. In the long run, this helps encourage people that they don't need a second family car. Are we succeeding in this? I don't think so.

What I am saying is that both cost and service are important to encourage people to use transit.

If cost is the only factor, then it becomes a welfare service like in many American cities. We do not want to go in that direction. At that point, transit becomes next to irrelevant.

[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 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.

[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.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In other words, when we invest a lot of capital in transit, we would want to see an improvement in speed, not just maintaining the status quo.

Can't really work on improving the system, if you don't address the core constraints that exist in the system today.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a problem when we look at only cost competitiveness. Once a vehicle is purchased, most only look at the cost of operating the vehicle, rather than total costs. Sunk costs and even maintenance are excluded as they are assumed to be fixed. This is why high parking costs, which are effectively operating costs of a vehicle are so effective in convincing people to switch to transit.

Indeed. Which is exactly why Ottawa should impose a parking tax. $5 per spot, per day, inside the greenbelt, for all non-residential properties. Watch how quickly malls and employers encourage people to take up transit.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a problem when we look at only cost competitiveness. Once a vehicle is purchased, most only look at the cost of operating the vehicle, rather than total costs. Sunk costs and even maintenance are excluded as they are assumed to be fixed. This is why high parking costs, which are effectively operating costs of a vehicle are so effective in convincing people to switch to transit.

This problem will actually get worse with the coming electrification of vehicles, as electric vehicles are considerably cheaper to operate than traditional vehicles (the cost of buying power to charge the batteries being about a third of the cost of buying gasoline to cover the same distance) and require less regular maintenance. So in the future, once you have an EV, the cost to use it is pretty low.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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

I commute to work with my girlfriend. Two transit passes today (before the scheduled increase) would be $233 vs. the $210 we pay for parking. Including gas, driving is a little more expensive, but it's worth it for the convenience (medical appointments, groceries, after work plans, overtime...)

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. Which is exactly why Ottawa should impose a parking tax. $5 per spot, per day, inside the greenbelt, for all non-residential properties. Watch how quickly malls and employers encourage people to take up transit.

When transit passes are too expensive, the solution isn't raising the price of parking. Other than Toronto and Vancouver (outside Zone 1), Ottawa has by far the most expensive transit fares in the country. That needs to change.

And charging a flat parking tax everywhere inside the Greenbelt when most of that area is poorly served by transit doesn't make sense either. Unless you live and work on an O-Train Line, taking transit as your main transportation option is not realistic. I could support a downtown parking tax if the revenue generated were going towards lowering transit fares. Same with Park-and-Ride fees.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I commute to work with my girlfriend. Two transit passes today (before the scheduled increase) would be $233 vs. the $210 we pay for parking. Including gas, driving is a little more expensive, but it's worth it for the convenience (medical appointments, groceries, after work plans, overtime...)




When transit passes are too expensive, the solution isn't raising the price of parking. Other than Toronto and Vancouver (outside Zone 1), Ottawa has by far the most expensive transit fares in the country. That needs to change.

And charging a flat parking tax everywhere inside the Greenbelt when most of that area is poorly served by transit doesn't make sense either. Unless you live and work on an O-Train Line, taking transit as your main transportation option is not realistic. I could support a downtown parking tax if the revenue generated were going towards lowering transit fares. Same with Park-and-Ride fees.

There is a reason why they are so expensive, Ottawa area wise is 4 times as big as Toronto so OC Transpo has to cover more kms than any other city in Canada. My solution would be a congestion tax like they do in stockholm sweden and London UK.

[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.