Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Given the sprawl anticipated with the new bridge, they won't have choice to add a local route or make the 99 run funky loops. If the 99 runs to Barrhaven eventually and along a future corridor, the frequency would have to be boosted, if the all day route would be Barrhaven Centre to Leitrim and use Chapman Mills while the 176 stays on Strandherd or maybe a little bit north to cover the cuts on the 171 on the east side of Barrhaven since the spring.

The 94 does run every 15 minutes at most times during weekdays in the south, so that would help. Have a bus crossing the bridge every 7/8 mins (in the future) would be great.

Funny how we can only afford a bus every hour on the Hunt Club Road Bridge

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So you are suggesting running parallel rail and Transitways further south. How is this really an economical approach? Based on your ridership argument, the O-Train should never have been built.

There are many in the south end that will want to use the train to go to non-downtown destinations such as Carleton and Confederation Heights government buildings as well as Gatineau. However, any southern extension should be peak periods only.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why are doing this in a city this size? One planning mistake being compounded on another and another.

Welcome to Ottawa.

(Also: two spaces? don't.)

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To be fair, transfering between different modes of public transportation is pretty common in most cities. Toronto has at least 5 (Train, Subway, Streetcar, LRT, Bus) and many people have to take 3 to get to their destination; German cities have a Ubahn, sbahn, tram, bus and commuter rail. I think Ottawa is the only place in the world where people were ever told they could expect a single mode of transit (a streetcar in Otttawa's proposal) all the way from the downtown core to the outer suburbs.

"Streetcar", eh?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

There are MUCH greater priorities at this time - the east-west line, then extend to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans which by then should be more densely developed in their cores.

As long as Ottawa is infested with a terminal case of the Nimbies, Kanata, Barrhaven, and Orleans will never be more densely developed in their cores (wherever the fuck those things are), nor anywhere else.

Thirty years of official plans call for more density, more compact form, more transit- and pedestrian-oriented development; thirty years of reality is more and more and more suburban and anti-urban bullshit. And anyone who attempts to build anything to the contrary, 19 times out of 20, get Nimbied out of it.

This town is a shithole.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

As long as Ottawa is infested with a terminal case of the Nimbies, Kanata, Barrhaven, and Orleans will never be more densely developed in their cores (wherever the fuck those things are), nor anywhere else.

Thirty years of official plans call for more density, more compact form, more transit- and pedestrian-oriented development; thirty years of reality is more and more and more suburban and anti-urban bullshit. And anyone who attempts to build anything to the contrary, 19 times out of 20, get Nimbied out of it.

This town is a shithole.

Are any other towns better? Not really. If you take out all official plans, the suburbs would look like large Greely-type communities.

[S-Man]

Quebec City and Halifax are other big examples of NIMBY-driven planning, in fact, more so than Ottawa. Not in terms of the 'volume' and volume of complaints, but in Ottawa at least things over 8 storeys get built. In QC and Halifax they never get built, which is a shame, because those are some great cities.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Are any other towns better? Not really. If you take out all official plans, the suburbs would look like large Greely-type communities.

Maybe, but you might also have urbs that have a chance of being urbs. Almost worth it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Quebec City and Halifax are other big examples of NIMBY-driven planning, in fact, more so than Ottawa. Not in terms of the 'volume' and volume of complaints, but in Ottawa at least things over 8 storeys get built. In QC and Halifax they never get built, which is a shame, because those are some great cities.

It's not the height or lack of height that is indicative to me, although the we're-against-height-because-it's-high movement here is just out to lunch.

What really gets me is that Ottawans have collectively zero clue about what makes built cities good (let alone great). All they want is more goddamn green space and open space and public space and buildings (if there MUST be buildings) that shirk the street are considered more pleasing and "vibrant" than ones that work with and interface with the street. It's how we end up with lots of condo buildings of late, which is a good move, but very few with street-level public uses (like many in Vancouver, with retail or institutional uses on the ground floor.) It's how we end up with ass-ugly public buildings and the insistence on massive, streetscape-killing setbacks, in the suburbs and in downtown. It's how we end up with more suburban sprawl, bad residential street layouts mass-segregated from retail uses, which all end up being big-box and strip developments several kilometers away.

And then the developers (and even the city) say there's no market for mixed-use dense new suburbs. How the hell do we know that? No one's buiilding them. No one's allowed to build them. And yet prices keep rising and rising in all the old pre-war "streetcar suburbs" of the type that we are told no one likes.

Everyone's head is screwed on wrong.

Shithole.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Quebec City and Halifax are other big examples of NIMBY-driven planning, in fact, more so than Ottawa. Not in terms of the 'volume' and volume of complaints, but in Ottawa at least things over 8 storeys get built. In QC and Halifax they never get built, which is a shame, because those are some great cities.

There's an even worse story at play in Halifax, one that hasn't got much attention: the exurbanization of dozens of lakes in Halifax County, even deep in the interior of mainland NS. But that's for the Halifax forum I guess.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And then the developers (and even the city) say there's no market for mixed-use dense new suburbs. How the hell do we know that? No one's buiilding them. No one's allowed to build them. And yet prices keep rising and rising in all the old pre-war "streetcar suburbs" of the type that we are told no one likes.

I questioned a city planner why no traditional main streets have been created or zoned in the last half century and I didn't really get a satisfactory answer. Case in point is the northern extension of Stittsville Main Street — it's an mediocre arterial, often with houses backing on to it, with no hope of any future commercial or pedestrian activity. A pity really, as they are pushing the road towards the 417 and a parallel future transit axis past ScotiaBank Place, and would have made a nice central commercial spine running through the community.

[Cre47]

Lot of activity near the future Montcalm station area beside the end of Highway 50, seems they've been doing some ground dynamiting in and around.

[McC]

"final"Bayview Station design details from Darwin
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/...station-final/

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

"final"Bayview Station design details from Darwin
http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/...station-final/

Definitely much better.

[eternallyme]

I like that new Bayview design. Just get the O-Train extended to Gatineau, don't convert the Prince of Wales Bridge!

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I like that new Bayview design. Just get the O-Train extended to Gatineau, don't convert the Prince of Wales Bridge!

Agreed.

[McC]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Definitely much better.

yes, the plan finally takes into account the reality that this station is adjacent to actual neighbourhoods that yield important -- and growing -- walk-on traffic to this station; to whit:
- It now shows how Mechaniccsville residents might access the station, with a path on the correct side of the Scott-Transitway alignment (no extra looping, in fact "no extra looping around" could be the motto for all of the improvements in this version of the plan);
- It gives Hintonburg residents the direct path that they've been voting for with their feet for years (no looping along the alignment of the Bayview sidewalk); and
- It gives western neighbours direct access to the O-Train platform (no huge loop around).

Also, I agree that a new structure isn't required... unless of course we were tearing down that wall, and submerging the whole line (but we've all heard my "if we're building a subway anyway, let's build a proper modern subway" spiel before). hopefully more such savings from smart compromises and scale-downs are being found elsewhere; e.g. lets just not overbuild a massive, tempo, Tunney's Pasture Bus Depot and Exchange Station and just go all the way to Lincoln Fields and Baseline in 2017 where major transfer facilities already exist?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by McC

yes, the plan finally takes into account the reality that this station is adjacent to actual neighbourhoods that yield important -- and growing -- walk-on traffic to this station; to whit:
- It now shows how Mechaniccsville residents might access the station, with a path on the correct side of the Scott-Transitway alignment (no extra looping, in fact "no extra looping around" could be the motto for all of the improvements in this version of the plan);
- It gives Hintonburg residents the direct path that they've been voting for with their feet for years (no looping along the alignment of the Bayview sidewalk); and
- It gives western neighbours direct access to the O-Train platform (no huge loop around).

Also, I agree that a new structure isn't required... unless of course we were tearing down that wall, and submerging the whole line (but we've all heard my "if we're building a subway anyway, let's build a proper modern subway" spiel before). hopefully more such savings from smart compromises and scale-downs are being found elsewhere; e.g. lets just not overbuild a massive, tempo, Tunney's Pasture Bus Depot and Exchange Station and just go all the way to Lincoln Fields and Baseline in 2017 where major transfer facilities already exist?

I would try to move ahead quickly afterward with the western extension for a target of no later than December 2022. (I chose that date because that will be when the current articulated buses reach 12 years old and retirement.) At that schedule, in 11 years, there would be about 25 km of the mainline LRT (Baseline to Blair, plus a 3 km extension to Bayshore which should be constructed concurrently)

[MountainView]

OC Transpo to add 66,000 hours of new service to help with increased demand and previous cuts. Link:

http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/pressco.pl?...=17345&lang=en

http://www.octranspo1.com/routes/new_winter_service

[OttawaSteve]

OC Transpo is making service improvements by adding 66,000 service hours to address growing demands and ridership.

In other news, I am going to drink 66,000 litres of water!

It sounds impressive until you consider how large a timeframe it will be spread over. Since it's apparently included in the 2012 budget, I'm guessing it's 66,000 hours over one fiscal year (and not 66,000 hours over the timeframe of, say, 4 to 5 pm on Monday, January 9th). This works out to about...

- 10 additional buses each operating 18 hours a day, every day for a year

OR

- 44 additional buses each operating 6 hours a day for 250 days (i.e. weekday peak periods only)