Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service

[Truenorth00]

Slight tangent question.

I have always wondered why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did. It's not like the Transitway didn't have decent high frequency transit service. Yet all of a sudden we have 30 storey condos popping everywhere along the line. It's incredible to see. Just wish it happened earlier in the city's history and wondering why it didn't.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slight tangent question.

I have always wondered why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did. It's not like the Transitway didn't have decent high frequency transit service. Yet all of a sudden we have 30 storey condos popping everywhere along the line. It's incredible to see. Just wish it happened earlier in the city's history and wondering why it didn't.

A good question. I feel there are several factors:

1) trains always seem to attract people to them. Look no further than our 100 year old stations. They were all in the city centres. They have always been city centres. Now look where bus stations tend to be. They always tend to be further out from the city centre.

2) Condos weren't a thing.Up until a few decades ago, single family homes were the only thing worth building. Just look around Toronto and Vancouver and most of the large condo buildings have been built in the last 2 decades.

3) Building for existing demand, or building and putting demand in? I'd bet that most cities would not allow that kind of construction without a good transit route already there. If they did, the farmland of York Region would first see TOD construction.

Combine those together and the city politicians want to look good.

[Richard Eade]

I think that the answer lies in the City’s imposed zoning along the Transitway verses the huge change in favour of up-scaling construction projects around the Confederation Line. Although the City talked about wanting TOD along the Transitway, it did little, if anything, to encourage that goal. With the huge cost of a conversion to rail, the City needs to encourage a lot more property-tax revenue by changing the rules around the LRT stations.

There is also a different view of the LRT compared to the Transitway. The Transitway was developed as a fast conduit for buses from the outskirts to get downtown. There was no real desire to slow down the service by providing extra stops. A great example of that is the never-installed stop for the towers around Ambleside. With the LRT, there are now going to be (too many?) additional stops between Tunney’s Pasture and Lincoln Fields. And both Sherbourne and New Orchard have TOD potential, which the City is facilitating.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slight tangent question.

I have always wondered why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did. It's not like the Transitway didn't have decent high frequency transit service. Yet all of a sudden we have 30 storey condos popping everywhere along the line. It's incredible to see. Just wish it happened earlier in the city's history and wondering why it didn't.

My complete stab in the dark here:

1. Its well known that people have a nostalgia around rail, and view it as something that's difficult to change or modify, and more reliable and higher class then buses. bigger demand to be around rail then buses.

2. For The longest of time Ottawa could meet the demand for housing by expanding the suburbs, add in that the suburbs were/are seen as a safer place to raise a family ( I don't specifically agree with that). Little demand for higher density living

3. Zoning that made building higher density difficult, ...expensive.

So put it simply little to no demand tied to higher costs means devs don't bother building higher density. While today zoning had been relaxed and demand is high enough that it's worth fighting to build higher density.

[MalcolmTucker]

Can't ignore how housing scarcity has improved the economics of building on sites which have been owned for a long time. The Confederation Line is just contemporaneous to this effect.

[roger1818]

I agree with many of the answers above but also want to add that the tunnel is another big factor. The transitway was great at getting people to the outskirts of downtown, but then it got stuck on city streets downtown. Sure there were transit priority measures, but it isn't the same as having dedicated track without having to stop for traffic lights. Having underground stations downtown also helps.

Another factor is now every train is your train. With the transitway, many express buses didn't stop at all stops and you had to pay a higher fare to use them.

[J.OT13]

That said, some TOD was built early on along the Transitway. Office buildings around Blair (but with massive parking lots, defeating the purpose), along with the Gloucester Centre Mall. St. Laurent Mall expanded. The Hurdman condo towers. A few of the Lees apartment towers. Holland Cross across the street from Tunney's. Minto Metropole + townhomes. Centrepointe (again, with massive parking).

The Transitway wasn't a complete failure in that regard, but nowhere near as successful as the O-Train.

[rocketphish]

Why does RTG think it's owed $230M from city taxpayers because of the sinkhole?
City manager Steve Kanellakos said he couldn't discuss why the consortium believes it's owed a nine-figure settlement from the municipal government.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: May 12, 2021 • 20 minutes ago • 3 minute read

Rideau Transit Group wants $230 million from Ottawa’s property taxpayers because of costs it swallowed from the Rideau Street sinkhole, even though a cornerstone of the LRT contract signed with the city was supposed to transfer all risk to the private consortium.

So why is RTG asking for so much money?

That was still a mystery on Wednesday, with a spokesperson for the consortium saying it can’t comment on ongoing commercial or contractual disputes.

City manager Steve Kanellakos said he couldn’t discuss why the consortium believes it’s owed a nine-figure settlement from the municipal government because of the 2016 sinkhole.

“As you can imagine, it’s the cost that they felt were related to the repair of the sinkhole and the delay that resulted from the sinkhole in terms of what it costs them to finish the projects,” Kanellakos said during a press conference. “It’s all wrapped up into repair and cause of delay on substantial completion. I can give you that as the general categories.”

RTG’s huge claim against the city came to light thanks to a lawsuit launched by the city on Tuesday against the insurance companies on the LRT project.

The city is suing the 13 insurers who provided a policy covering the period between Feb. 12, 2013 and June 1, 2018 because the city’s claim for “soft costs” related to the sinkhole were denied. The policy was obtained by RTG and named RTG and the city as among the insured parties.

RTG, too, is suing the insurers for $275 million because the insurers allegedly declined to pay a claim in relation to the sinkhole.

The LRT system was contracted to be ready for operations on May 24, 2018. It didn’t open until Sept. 14, 2019.

The city wants the court to declare the sinkhole an “insured peril” under the insurance policy. The lawsuit argues that soft costs, including those racked up because of the LRT delay, are included in the policy coverage.

The city managed to successfully claim $1.7 million in “hard costs” from the insurers related to its response to the sinkhole, but the city’s alleged soft costs are in another league.

The city lists just over $131 million in damages and losses as a result of the sinkhole and delayed operation of LRT.

The city’s alleged carrying cost at roughly $104 million is the largest on the list. There aren’t details in the lawsuit about the carrying costs, but OC Transpo had to maintain bus detours for much longer than anticipated.

Consultant expenses, wages and salaries of employees are about $22 million. Other expenses tied to the delayed LRT opening are about $3 million, while financial costs and expenses for legal and accounting are both just under $400,000.

In addition to its own expenses, the city’s lawsuit against the insurers also claims the $230 million that RTG believes its owed from the city, just in case RTG wins.

Kanellakos said he wasn’t surprised that the insurers rejected the city’s large claim for soft costs related to the sinkhole. The city must protect taxpayers and protect itself from RTG if the consortium’s $230-million claim against the city is successful, Kanellakos said.

Mayor Jim Watson said the city’s lawsuit was filed “to ensure the protection of our taxpayers” and that the city feels it has a “solid case.”

The sinkhole on Rideau Street, just east of Sussex Drive, happened the morning of June 8, 2016 as RTG was mining the LRT tunnel. No one was hurt. A parked van toppled into the sinkhole and was encased in concrete during the remediation work.

A root cause investigation by a third party, McMillen Jacobs Associates, produced a report in December 2016 concluding that unstable saturated soil had likely been disturbed by the tunnel work. It led to a water main rupturing and eroding the soils below the pipe, leading to the sinkhole, according to the report, which also said it was unlikely that the water main rupture was independent of the LRT work below.

At the time, the city said RTG was aware of the soft ground conditions in the area of Rideau Street.

Around March 2018, council members learned that RTG wasn’t accepting responsibility for the sinkhole and was demanding relief from terms in the construction contract.

RTG is partnership of ACS Infrastructure, EllisDon and SNC-Lavalin.

Before the contract signing in 2013 and through the years that followed, the public has been told the city’s $2.1-billion fixed-price contract for Stage 1 LRT transferred risk to the private consortium, including when it came to tunnelling.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...f-the-sinkhole

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slight tangent question.

I have always wondered why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did. It's not like the Transitway didn't have decent high frequency transit service. Yet all of a sudden we have 30 storey condos popping everywhere along the line. It's incredible to see. Just wish it happened earlier in the city's history and wondering why it didn't.

Because buses don't inspire any confidence in property owners or occupiers that the transit configuration is permanent.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That said, some TOD was built early on along the Transitway. Office buildings around Blair (but with massive parking lots, defeating the purpose), along with the Gloucester Centre Mall. St. Laurent Mall expanded. The Hurdman condo towers. A few of the Lees apartment towers. Holland Cross across the street from Tunney's. Minto Metropole + townhomes. Centrepointe (again, with massive parking).

The Transitway wasn't a complete failure in that regard, but nowhere near as successful as the O-Train.

The Transitway was barely indistinguishable from an urban planning placebo, given what a complete failure it was at inducing any TOD, and much of the supposed TOD that ended up built, was actually missing the O part of TOD.

[Kitchissippi]

The Transitway was primarily used as a conduit for express buses, which meant many of the stations were under utilized dead spaces as there was little need for transfers. Rail stations are usually designed as transfer hubs, creating areas of pedestrian ‘friction’ that are conducive to other activities which in turn attracts more development.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Because buses don't inspire any confidence in property owners or occupiers that the transit configuration is permanent.

Sure. But the Transitway was a lot more than just painted lines on a road. I dunno, coming from Toronto, I always thought of it as a subway with buses as rolling stock. And it's why I set out to live near it.

It's always surprising to me that people seemed to have seen a mostly grade separated private network for buses, as "just a bus".

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure. But the Transitway was a lot more than just painted lines on a road. I dunno, coming from Toronto, I always thought of it as a subway with buses as rolling stock. And it's why I set out to live near it.

While I agree it was (is) "a lot more than just painted lines on a road," there are several key differences between the Transitway and a subway. From the perspective of an investor (who likely never uses transit) it is still looks like a bus. Also, since buses can (and do) switch between roads and the transitway, as long as you live close to a major bus route that uses the transitway, you get most of the same advantages as living close to a transitway station.

Also, thanks in large part to Gréber*, Ottawa is much more decentralized than Toronto, so a smaller percentage of people work downtown, reducing the usefulness of the transitway.

*The Gréber Plan had government buildings scattered across the city (inside the greenbelt) with the idea that it would reduce traffic congestion, since not everyone would be driving to/from the same place.

It's always surprising to me that people seemed to have seen a mostly grade separated private network for buses, as "just a bus".

The key word in that sentence is "mostly." You may not have seen it on your commute, but many buses would get stuck in traffic in the sections that weren't grade separated.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure. But the Transitway was a lot more than just painted lines on a road. I dunno, coming from Toronto, I always thought of it as a subway with buses as rolling stock. And it's why I set out to live near it.

It's always surprising to me that people seemed to have seen a mostly grade separated private network for buses, as "just a bus".

That's how I saw it as well.

It had obvious shortcomings but these were generally due to missing links in the system that were the result of decision-making (or lack thereof).

If you were for example a U of O student living near Blair Station, the Transitway effectively functioned like a subway for you.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you were for example a U of O student living near Blair Station, the Transitway effectively functioned like a subway for you.

That's because the Transitway was continuous between Campus and Blair stations. A similar student living near one of the west end stations wouldn't have had as good an experience.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Slight tangent question.

I have always wondered why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did. It's not like the Transitway didn't have decent high frequency transit service. Yet all of a sudden we have 30 storey condos popping everywhere along the line. It's incredible to see. Just wish it happened earlier in the city's history and wondering why it didn't.

Trains are much more comfortable to travel in, and someone turning their nose up at a bus is much more likely to take a train. Stigma?

For years I commuted to Carleton by taking the transitway *away* from the school, to then catch the train at Greenboro and head back to Carleton. Travel time difference was negligible, but the train was nice, and felt much more relaxed. Low noise, no loopy turns and jarring stops and general 'chaos' of a bus.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That's because the Transitway was continuous between Campus and Blair stations. A similar student living near one of the west end stations wouldn't have had as good an experience.

Correct. But that's a flaw of how Ottawa built (or did not complete) its Transitway. It's not necessarily an inherent flaw of BRT.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Correct. But that's a flaw of how Ottawa built (or did not complete) its Transitway. It's not necessarily an inherent flaw of BRT.

True, but the original question was, "why the Confederation Line is attracting more TOD than the Transitway did," not why train rapid transit attracts more TOD than BRT.

Back to the original question, another factor is investors like to latch onto things that are new, as they generate a lot of media attention. Back when the transitway was built, BRT was a largely unproven "technology," and likely considered too risky to invest in TOD around. By the time it proved itself, it was no longer new and not getting much media attention. Also, Ottawa was a much smaller city back then, and the need for TOD was smaller (I am not even sure if the concept of TOD was as much of a thing back then).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Trains are much more comfortable to travel in, and someone turning their nose up at a bus is much more likely to take a train. Stigma?

For years I commuted to Carleton by taking the transitway *away* from the school, to then catch the train at Greenboro and head back to Carleton. Travel time difference was negligible, but the train was nice, and felt much more relaxed. Low noise, no loopy turns and jarring stops and general 'chaos' of a bus.

I have to agree, though I do think that part of the more spacious feel of the Trillium line trains is due yes to the inside actually being larger, but also that very often it's filled below capacity.

Highly packed rail transit vehicles aren't always more comfortable and pleasant than less packed buses running on BRT systems.

The Transitway routes weren't unpleasant when they weren't jam-packed. Though I have to say that the GM(?) articulated buses were more spacious inside than the Ikarus ones. The Ikarus ones also had an annoying step up from the walkway to the space under the seats. Which made the walkway or standing space unnecessarily and annoyingly narrow.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Back to the original question, another factor is investors like to latch onto things that are new, as they generate a lot of media attention. Back when the transitway was built, BRT was a largely unproven "technology," and likely considered too risky to invest in TOD around. By the time it proved itself, it was no longer new and not getting much media attention. Also, Ottawa was a much smaller city back then, and the need for TOD was smaller (I am not even sure if the concept of TOD was as much of a thing back then).

Let's also remember that the Transitway was opened very incrementally. It wasn't like when the Confederation Line opened with a "here it is! the entire line!".

I was there on the first day of the Transitway, and rode on the first short stretch to open (in the east end - there may have been another in the west) that IIRC went from Hurdman to Lees to Campus.

There was never a single "grand opening" of a 20-30 km Transitway, like there was for the Confederation Line.