tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post8021317214957485251..comments2023-06-21T11:58:47.093-04:00Comments on West Side Action: Light Rail and the SW (OTrain) routeEric Darwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01042460139621819388noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-1333502034983934912009-09-20T01:15:52.712-04:002009-09-20T01:15:52.712-04:00Hi Eric, I like how you call the line the "SW...Hi Eric, I like how you call the line the "SW O-Train." I think the "North South" name was unfortunate because it sounds like it goes two different directions, when really it only goes south of downtown and doesn't go north to Gatineau. <br /><br />The bidirectional "north-south" name meant people would compare it to an "east-west" line across the City, when the project would really be comparable to building a single "east" line or a "west" line.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-20068510496518079162009-09-18T11:15:48.809-04:002009-09-18T11:15:48.809-04:00WJM: could be, but wasn't: and for the develop...<b>WJM: could be, but wasn't: and for the developers, a good thing too. Imagine selling a neighborhood based on direct access to a LRT and then it doesn't come. Would home buyers sue the builder for false promises? What if LRT never comes? Ideally, I'd love for Urbandale to be building transit-focussed developments today, but he won't, until the transit appears and the consumer expresses a demand for transit-focussed communities.</b><br /><br />The "communities" (ugh) aren't transit-focussed today, but the way they are physically laid out, the never can and never will be.<br /><br />The same style of suburban housing (and bloody strip malls) COULD have been laid out on a street pattern that (A) could be supportive of a future LRT or other transit system, and (B) could be capable of "growing up".<br /><br />But it wasn't.<br /><br />Ottawa keeps building suburbs that are frozen, and always will be frozen, in the 1950s.<br /><br />It's wasteful and stupid.WJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08070910923518931583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-88366840264935758622009-09-17T21:03:05.172-04:002009-09-17T21:03:05.172-04:00WJM: could be, but wasn't: and for the develop...WJM: could be, but wasn't: and for the developers, a good thing too. Imagine selling a neighborhood based on direct access to a LRT and then it doesn't come. Would home buyers sue the builder for false promises? What if LRT never comes? Ideally, I'd love for Urbandale to be building transit-focussed developments today, but he won't, until the transit appears and the consumer expresses a demand for transit-focussed communities. <br />thx for the comments today and previously,<br />-EricEric Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042460139621819388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-87219131108713735892009-09-17T20:59:38.258-04:002009-09-17T20:59:38.258-04:00David: boosting ridership: yes there are numerous ...David: boosting ridership: yes there are numerous examples of ridership being higher than projected or growing faster than projected. Unfortunately, there are also a number of transit extensions that have proved to be duds. Traffic planners take certain measurable factors and make a projection. It has to be defensable. I dont want them to boost projections by 50% or 150% because SOME fixed rail systems have had higher than projected growth. Until someone does a series of reviews/backcasting of transit projections for all the LRT segments opened in North America over the last two decades, we wont have usable rail data. <br /><br />With respect to your second para, swapping out buses from BRT to feeders once the LRT is open will not reduce total costs, as we are increasing our costs by running all the old buses plus the LRT. Some per passenger costs might drop, and the back-haul savings from BRT MIGHT be converted into new bus users on improved feeder services, but total transit budgets go up, not laterally or down.<br />-EricEric Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01042460139621819388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-11955912815026041682009-09-17T18:35:44.816-04:002009-09-17T18:35:44.816-04:00and the street plan could be shaped to feed to it....<b>and the street plan could be shaped to feed to it.</b><br /><br />Could be, yes.<br /><br />But wasn't.<br /><br />Ottawa is still building spaghetti string suburbs.<br /><br />Why?WJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08070910923518931583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-969156847256652198.post-17659103210931731002009-09-16T23:20:05.327-04:002009-09-16T23:20:05.327-04:00"Converting the BRT transitway to LRT was see..."Converting the BRT transitway to LRT was seen as progressive, even if it didn't give a huge boost to ridership."<br /><br />How do you know that? The O-Train, after all, has doubled ridership expectations. Why? Probably because they were using the same model used for estimating BRT ridership. They didn't anticipate the large number of people who use it in the morning to head north and then west (rather than east) to Tunney's Pasture. They didn't anticipate Carleton students moving into areas around the stations - yet any urban planner (not to be confused with transportation engineers who call themselves "planners") graduating in the last 20 years could have told them as much. Areas around light rail rapid transit stations become more attractive to businesses and residents, both of which serve to increase ridership in imperceptible ways over time.<br /><br />Converting the Transitway frees up plenty of bus capacity for feeder service, thus leading to an increase in ridership. It also leads to a reduction in operating costs, which indirectly increases ridership by reducing fares (or reducing the rate of fare increase) and the increase in reliability makes the service generally more attractive.Davidnoreply@blogger.com