Bank Street Subway | Fantasy

[TheMatth69]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

This sort of illustrates why a Bank Street subway won’t do much for Centretown and the Glebe. At 10% transit vs 56% walking to work indicates most people won’t pay 7 bucks for a round trip to downtown when walking is free. As this survey was done in 2011 before much of the cycling infrastructure improvements like the O’Connor bike lanes were done, I suspect there’s been an uptick in that mode. Complete-streeting Bank Street would probably bring more life than an underground train, and cost in the mere tens of millions.

10% is for ANY type of trip. 20% is the average commute transit share average in all of Ottawa. I suspect this is much higher in Centretown-Glebe (we should be around 40%) considering 46% of the residents don't own a car.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd argue that the reason the transit modal share is lower than active transportation is that transit sucks. I'll chose freezing by butt off walking 30 minutes over freezing my butt off waiting for a bus that may never show or show up packed to the gills. If we had reliable transit in the urban core, ridership would go up.

The goal of transit is to get people out of their cars, not to discourage them from walking or cycling. That would be a regressive policy.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Higher order transit is built for one purpose only: peak capacity. Outside of that we'd use buses. Tourist and special event ridership doesn't drive multi-billion dollar transit investment anywhere.

To add to TheMatth69, the pandemic proved that, in the urban area at least, transit is used for more than commuting. While ridership of suburban bus routes and the commuter oriented Confederation Line took a massive hit, urban bus routes, despite their undeniable flaws, continued to carry close to 50% of their regular ridership.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

We could argue for years about this and no one would end up agreeing. However, the arguments isn't about if the city will build a bank street subway (we know it's not in any current plans), the argument is about if a Bank Street subway (if one was ever built) could potentially generate enough ridership to justify it being built in the first place.
And as a 4th year International economics student, I use data everyday. So I'm going to let the data speaks for its self.

Rennes, France: Smallest city in the world with a metro system between 2002 and 2008
Number of lines: 1 + 1 opening in 2021
Average ridership per weekday: 140 000
Average yearly ridership : 32 million
City Population : 217 728 inhabitants
Metro Population : 451 762 inhabitants
City density : 4283/km2
Metro density : 681/km2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes_Metro

Ottawa Bank Street corridor data:
Centertown + Glebe + Old Ottawa South + Alta Vista + Heron Gate population: 73 585 inhabitants (2016 Census)
Average Density : 6347/km2 (2016 Census)
Sources:
https://www.neighbourhoodstudy.ca/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centretown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glebe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Ottawa_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Vista,_Ottawa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_Gate

Ottawa South suburbs (Neighbourhoods subject to transfer on a Bank street subway) data:
Neighbourhoods included : Hunt Club Park | Greenboro East | South Keys-Greenboro West | Playfair-Lynda Park-Guildwood Estates | Alta Vista | Riverside Park | Hunt Club Woods | Hunt Club East | Emerald Woods-Sawmill Creek | Blossom Park
Population : 77 275 inhabitants (2016 census)
Average density : 2099/km2
Sources : https://www.neighbourhoodstudy.ca/

Bank Street Corridor + South Suburbs Data:
Population : ≈ 150 860 inhabitants
Estimated population within 12 years ( based on a 5,8% average every 4 years): ≈ 176 139
Density average : ≈ 4223/km2

Look the Data speaks for it self, it's raw data. It doesn't take into accound bus transfers, travel time, Touristic & Sports Events etc... Will a Bank Street ever see the light of the day, not anytime soon. Is a Bank Street subway in 10 years viable in terms of ridership absolutly!!!

Just going to point out that the line is light in the lightest sense light-metro, and currently runs at a capacity of 7650 pphpd, or about 1350 pphpd less then the confederation line. Or put another way completely within the capabilities of a at grade LRT running in its own lane.

And isn't the Ontario guide for actual subways 5,000 or 10,000 people/km^2? in which case in ~20 years this discussion can start going from pure fantasy to reality, assuming those areas actually grow at the rate you have stated.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The goal of transit is to get people out of their cars, not to discourage them from walking or cycling. That would be a regressive policy.

I agree in part, but transit is also about easier mobility. Just because urbanites already walk and cycle doesn't mean we can ignore their transit needs. Maybe they don't want to freeze at -15 degrees on a Tuesday afternoon. One effect of a Bank line would be a decrease in cycling and walking, but it would also provide more mobility for people wanting to get around beyond their neighbourhood. As TheMatth69 said, a subway would make it easier for people to travel along Bank to the CBD, the Market, Lansdowne. One quick transfer and someone can head west to Westboro or Wellington West. Enjoy a day at Westboro Beach and return to the Glebe in a quick and efficient matter.

As it stands, if you live in the Glebe, Old Ottawa South or even the southern parts of Centretown, your trapped if you don't have a car. If you do have a car, you won't waste your time waiting for the bus, you'll drive.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Just going to point out that the line is light in the lightest sense light-metro, and currently runs at a capacity of 7650 pphpd, or about 1350 pphpd less then the confederation line. Or put another way completely within the capabilities of a at grade LRT running in its own lane.

And isn't the Ontario guide for actual subways 5,000 or 10,000 people/km^2? in which case in ~20 years this discussion can start going from pure fantasy to reality, assuming those areas actually grow at the rate you have stated.

A streetcar could possibly have that capacity, but far slower and still at a cost way beyond what the City would probably like to invest.

And ya, most of the Bank subway supporters are aware that it may take 20-30 years before this becomes a somewhat realistic discussion.

[rocketphish]

Wow... how deceiving is that at first glance! Pie charts with fixed-size pieces representing different-sized data.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

A streetcar could possibly have that capacity, but far slower and still at a cost way beyond what the City would probably like to invest.

And ya, most of the Bank subway supporters are aware that it may take 20-30 years before this becomes a somewhat realistic discussion.

The line in question has an average speed is 32 km/hr, so yeah not slower and far within the realm of getting funding instead of what you keep pushing as an ever increasing scope of a subway system, which if you got by what you thought this discussion was about now includes an extra couple km of tunnel.

Also, FYI, i'm not & I don't think kitchissipi was either talking about removing traffic from bank, just using 2 of the 4 lanes south of Gladstone for transit instead of parked cars.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

The line in question has an average speed is 32 km/hr, so yeah not slower and far within the realm of getting funding instead of what you keep pushing as an ever increasing scope of a subway system, which if you got by what you thought this discussion was about now includes an extra couple km of tunnel.

Also, FYI, i'm not & I don't think kitchissipi was either talking about removing traffic from bank, just using 2 of the 4 lanes south of Gladstone for transit instead of parked cars.

I think Aylmer was talking about removing traffic from Bank, not you or Kitchissippi. When I mentioned the many intersections, he countered with dead ends at most intersections. I counter with "that would remove crosswalks for peds" and he said trains would only come by every two minutes, so peds could cross at anytime. That to me suggested he would remove cars completely.

As for the amount of tunneling, I imagine 4.5 km, Queen to south of the Rideau. The rest would be elevated to South Keys, mostly going down Bank as opposed to converting the SE Transitway.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Building multi-billion subways to make it easier for drivers. More of that Rob Ford/Doug Ford philosophy of transit development. Too bad for the folks on this thread that they only care about applying this in the 416.

People arguing in favour of a Bank subway aren't doing it because they think it will make it better for cars, it's about building quality transit that will rival the car and provide better incentive for people leave their car at home, even if they're travelling to and from suburbia. By no stretch of the imagination can I see Bank becoming completely car-free, no matter the merit. One thing I could see happening is a Grande Allee type of setup with only 2 lanes of traffic, no on-street parking in summer, and widened sidewalks for patios and improved walkability. A subway would ensure there's space for that and would also make business owners more comfortable with the prospect of limited on-street parking.

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

So a simple rebuttal to that long winded spiel, The ION LRT.

So yes, LRT can increase capacity, can increase frequency, can decrease travel times, can increase reliability, and no a "subway" to the literal suburbs is not the only choice.

Bad example. It takes ION 45 mins, sometimes longer, to travel 19km from end to end, and the only reason it's not an hour or longer is because of the exclusive ROW sections outside of the central corridor segments. The on-street running sections are extremely slow and I'm not convinced they couldn't have achieved a similar level of service with exclusive bus lanes and frequent bus service. Choosing LRT as the mode for Waterloo clearly had a lot to do with the image they wanted to achieve for the city, as it looks more sophisticated and alluring to the young "creative class" they're trying to attract.

A streetcar down Bank wouldn't achieve anything that improved bus service couldn't. A subway down Bank, on the other hand (assuming there would be about 5 stations between Billings and Parliament) could:

- greatly improve existing local and commuter service
- minimize peak hour capacity pressure on confederation line between hurdman and bayview (which will be more relevant in 25-30 years)
- make Bank street and its many amenities more accessible by transit to the wider metro area
- provide rapid and high capacity service for major events at Lansdowne
- increase population growth, densification and transit modal share in the south as a result of more direct and rapid access to downtown
- and provide rapid, frequent and direct service between the airport and downtown, as opposed to a convoluted 2-transfer trip using an infrequent LRT service

Originally Posted by Aylmer

At absolute maximum, you'll have one transit vehicle in either direction every minute. You'll be able to cross anywhere.

But of course, I don't think you're really concerned about traffic on local streets, because car-clogged Bank means traffic on local streets. Nor can I really believe that you're concerned about pedestrian crossings, because car-clogged Bank is already very difficult to cross for pedestrians.

Current walkability on Bank can definitely improve, but I totally understand what J.OT13 is saying with regards to a tram potentially making it worse. If we want a surface system on Bank that will be able to accommodate longer than 70m trains at some point in the future, we will have to remove many signaled intersections which would make crossing more difficult during busy hours. Car traffic already makes it bad, but adding trams to the mix would make it worse. This might not be a problem under a car-free solution, but let's be honest, that's never going to happen for many of the aforementioned reasons discussed earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The contradiction kinda smacks of bad-faith arguments, but I'd be happy to be wrong.

If I'm being honest, this is kind of how I feel about some of the anti-subway arguments I'm seeing. In one breath, people are saying it's a white elephant that would be a waste of taxpayer money and that they would fight tooth and nail to stop if it was pursued, but they shrug at the idea of billions going towards building elevated tracks through greenfields in Kanata that would likely do very little to attract extra ridership.

We're also seeing bad-faith comparisons to suburban subway projects in the GTA when this is clearly a proposal for a very urban area that has more merit for this kind high order transit than some of the proposed park and ride stations in the middle of nowhere in stage 3. We should definitely not be building LRT passed Terry Fox in Kanata and we probably shouldn't be building passed Fallowfield in Barrhaven either.


At the end of the day, I think there's 2 things we can likely ALL agree on:

1. This wouldn't be feasible at all before 2040 at the very earliest, and possibly not until 2050 or later
2. This idea at least deserves a TPAP to truly explore and weigh the benefits and costs of different options, including double-tracking and extending the existing Trillium line into downtown.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think Aylmer was talking about removing traffic from Bank, not you or Kitchissippi. When I mentioned the many intersections, he countered with dead ends at most intersections. I counter with "that would remove crosswalks for peds" and he said trains would only come by every two minutes, so peds could cross at anytime. That to me suggested he would remove cars completely.

Definitely. I'm saying that you either remove car traffic, or restricting it to only local traffic within Centretown and the Glebe (an adapted version of Toronto's King Street). Bank Street is about as useless of a car route as you can get, failing under even the most mild of demand. Its constant congestion is not evidence of high volume, but simply of pitiful capacity compared to the more efficient traffic arteries such as O'Connor or Nicholas.

Bank Street simply can't be a good street for any mode as long as we pretend that it can accommodate cross-city car traffic - including for those car trips.

The 1000 or so trips per hour that it manages to eke through in cars at peak are laughably small compared to the added capacity of the street if it were to provide even basic transit priority. They'd fill only about 5% of the LRVs or buses that a transit-first Bank would carry. The rest of the available capacity would serve to draw trips away from cars on parallel routes. Put differently, transit priority to Billings Bridge would be more than double the capacity of all car routes from Ottawa South to downtown.

Now not everyone will switch to transit. But enough of them would to more than offset the pitiful number of cars that currently crawl down Bank Street. After all, why would you sit in traffic for 25 minutes on Bronson when you can take a bus or tram on Bank to Queen in 10?

Here's an interesting video which talks about this :

• Video Link

So even strictly from a driver's perspective and ignoring all the advantages for the other 70% of non-driver city residents, it's still advantageous. In exchange for not driving on Bank Street, you get a faster drive downtown. It's that simple.

[Clinton Desveaux]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

People arguing in favour of a Bank subway aren't doing it because they think it will make it better for cars, it's about building quality transit that will rival the car and provide better incentive for people leave their car at home, even if they're travelling to and from suburbia. By no stretch of the imagination can I see Bank becoming completely car-free, no matter the merit. One thing I could see happening is a Grande Allee type of setup with only 2 lanes of traffic, no on-street parking in summer, and widened sidewalks for patios and improved walkability. A subway would ensure there's space for that and would also make business owners more comfortable with the prospect of limited on-street parking.



Bad example. It takes ION 45 mins, sometimes longer, to travel 19km from end to end, and the only reason it's not an hour or longer is because of the exclusive ROW sections outside of the central corridor segments. The on-street running sections are extremely slow and I'm not convinced they couldn't have achieved a similar level of service with exclusive bus lanes and frequent bus service. Choosing LRT as the mode for Waterloo clearly had a lot to do with the image they wanted to achieve for the city, as it looks more sophisticated and alluring to the young "creative class" they're trying to attract.

A streetcar down Bank wouldn't achieve anything that improved bus service couldn't. A subway down Bank, on the other hand (assuming there would be about 5 stations between Billings and Parliament) could:

- greatly improve existing local and commuter service
- minimize peak hour capacity pressure on confederation line between hurdman and bayview (which will be more relevant in 25-30 years)
- make Bank street and its many amenities more accessible by transit to the wider metro area
- provide rapid and high capacity service for major events at Lansdowne
- increase population growth, densification and transit modal share in the south as a result of more direct and rapid access to downtown
- and provide rapid, frequent and direct service between the airport and downtown, as opposed to a convoluted 2-transfer trip using an infrequent LRT service




Current walkability on Bank can definitely improve, but I totally understand what J.OT13 is saying with regards to a tram potentially making it worse. If we want a surface system on Bank that will be able to accommodate longer than 70m trains at some point in the future, we will have to remove many signaled intersections which would make crossing more difficult during busy hours. Car traffic already makes it bad, but adding trams to the mix would make it worse. This might not be a problem under a car-free solution, but let's be honest, that's never going to happen for many of the aforementioned reasons discussed earlier in this thread.



If I'm being honest, this is kind of how I feel about some of the anti-subway arguments I'm seeing. In one breath, people are saying it's a white elephant that would be a waste of taxpayer money and that they would fight tooth and nail to stop if it was pursued, but they shrug at the idea of billions going towards building elevated tracks through greenfields in Kanata that would likely do very little to attract extra ridership.

We're also seeing bad-faith comparisons to suburban subway projects in the GTA when this is clearly a proposal for a very urban area that has more merit for this kind high order transit than some of the proposed park and ride stations in the middle of nowhere in stage 3. We should definitely not be building LRT passed Terry Fox in Kanata and we probably shouldn't be building passed Fallowfield in Barrhaven either.


At the end of the day, I think there's 2 things we can likely ALL agree on:

1. This wouldn't be feasible at all before 2040 at the very earliest, and possibly not until 2050 or later
2. This idea at least deserves a TPAP to truly explore and weigh the benefits and costs of different options, including double-tracking and extending the existing Trillium line into downtown.

I'm working on another story you are going to like which is related to the tunnel issue. Some very interesting information was given to me today which I'll be sharing in my next story.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Bad example. It takes ION 45 mins, sometimes longer, to travel 19km from end to end, and the only reason it's not an hour or longer is because of the exclusive ROW sections outside of the central corridor segments. The on-street running sections are extremely slow and I'm not convinced they couldn't have achieved a similar level of service with exclusive bus lanes and frequent bus service. Choosing LRT as the mode for Waterloo clearly had a lot to do with the image they wanted to achieve for the city, as it looks more sophisticated and alluring to the young "creative class" they're trying to attract.

A streetcar down Bank wouldn't achieve anything that improved bus service couldn't. A subway down Bank, on the other hand (assuming there would be about 5 stations between Billings and Parliament) could:

- greatly improve existing local and commuter service
- minimize peak hour capacity pressure on confederation line between hurdman and bayview (which will be more relevant in 25-30 years)
- make Bank street and its many amenities more accessible by transit to the wider metro area
- provide rapid and high capacity service for major events at Lansdowne
- increase population growth, densification and transit modal share in the south as a result of more direct and rapid access to downtown
- and provide rapid, frequent and direct service between the airport and downtown, as opposed to a convoluted 2-transfer trip using an infrequent LRT service

The confederation line phase 1 is roughly a ~25 min trip for a 12.5km trip, or 0.5 km/min (2 min/km, the ion if as you state is 0.42 km/min (2.37min/km), and could have capacity far within demand before hitting the end of life of the vehicles. As for LRT vs BRT, it comes down to demand, as for comparison its an articulated bus at 120 crush vs 270 for a lrt vehicle. Not talking about a streetcar, this is not stuck with traffic and what it would achieve is higher capacity.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Definitely. I'm saying that you either remove car traffic, or restricting it to only local traffic within Centretown and the Glebe (an adapted version of Toronto's King Street). Bank Street is about as useless of a car route as you can get, failing under even the most mild of demand. Its constant congestion is not evidence of high volume, but simply of pitiful capacity compared to the more efficient traffic arteries such as O'Connor or Nicholas.

Bank Street simply can't be a good street for any mode as long as we pretend that it can accommodate cross-city car traffic - including for those car trips.

Ironically, I feel like it would be more feasible to remove cars from bank north of the 417 than south of it, and that's because of the huge difference in presence of major parallel streets between north and south sides of the queensway. At least north of the queensway you have Metcalfe and O'Connor to accommodate diverted traffic, but there's no such option between the Rideau Canal and the queensway. Where does truck traffic that serves Bank businesses and Lansdowne go if Bank becomes transit exclusive? Lansdowne often needs to accommodate a multitude of 18 wheelers for major events that aren't allowed to use the QE Driveway. Not to mention that Bank is one of only two north-south arterials that cross both the Rideau River and Canal. Taking one of the two crossings away will be a tough pill to swallow for both business and residents in the area.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

The confederation line phase 1 is roughly a ~25 min trip for a 12.5km trip, or 0.5 km/min (2 min/km, the ion if as you state is 0.42 km/min (2.37min/km), and could have capacity far within demand before hitting the end of life of the vehicles.

That's my point, though. The only reason the average speed of ION is even comparable to confed is because of the exclusive ROW sections outside of the central core. The central on-street section between Erb and Ottawa Street takes 25 mins to go 6kms, which equates to about 0.25km/min or 4.2min/km. It's half as slow as the rest of the system which takes about 20 mins to travel 13 kms.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That's my point, though. The only reason the average speed of ION is even comparable to confed is because of the exclusive ROW sections outside of the central core. The central on-street section between Erb and Ottawa Street takes 25 mins to go 6kms, which equates to about 0.25km/min or 4.2min/km. It's half as slow as the rest of the system which takes about 20 mins to travel 13 kms.

Any Bank St. Subway is going to be short enough that the speed difference, just isn't going to make a substantial difference on travel times. The difference between a surface LRT averaging 20 km/h and a subway averaging 30 km/h is 5 mins for 5 km. And some of those savings would actually be lost to the wider stop spacing of a subway.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Ironically, I feel like it would be more feasible to remove cars from bank north of the 417 than south of it, and that's because of the huge difference in presence of major parallel streets between north and south sides of the queensway. At least north of the queensway you have Metcalfe and O'Connor to accommodate diverted traffic, but there's no such option between the Rideau Canal and the queensway. Where does truck traffic that serves Bank businesses and Lansdowne go if Bank becomes transit exclusive? Lansdowne often needs to accommodate a multitude of 18 wheelers for major events that aren't allowed to use the QE Driveway. Not to mention that Bank is one of only two north-south arterials that cross both the Rideau River and Canal. Taking one of the two crossings away will be a tough pill to swallow for both business and residents in the area.

There's a wide spectrum between free-for-all car access and a car-free street. If you need access for deliveries or occasional trucks, you can limit traffic to "authorized vehicles only" and accommodate loading bays. If you need local car access, you can use filtered permeability to limit its usefulness for commuter traffic at one or two points.

[TheMatth69]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Just going to point out that the line is light in the lightest sense light-metro, and currently runs at a capacity of 7650 pphpd, or about 1350 pphpd less then the confederation line. Or put another way completely within the capabilities of a at grade LRT running in its own lane.

And isn't the Ontario guide for actual subways 5,000 or 10,000 people/km^2? in which case in ~20 years this discussion can start going from pure fantasy to reality, assuming those areas actually grow at the rate you have stated.

The thing is a streetcar along bank street is not feasible because of the way the street is built (too narrow). It's not just about putting two rail roads parallel to each other. It's also about fitting platforms and shelters which also take even more space.
Of course, a Tram would be cheaper and be able to increase capacity at a reasonable price tag. But taking all the data we have we know that building a Tram or augmenting bus frequencies would be very difficult due to the lack of space we have. A light metro would be totally adequate.

Also, I never talked about building a line with the same capacity as the Confederation line. I did and I'll say it again a Bank street subway would be in CANADA LINE TERRITORY aka (7000 to 9000 pphpd).

PS: Ontario guidline for a subway starts at 4000/km2.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

I did and I'll say it again a Bank street subway would be in CANADA LINE TERRITORY aka (7000 to 9000 pphpd).

Not without the closure of Trillium....

[Truenorth00]

For the cost of this subway, Bank could be turned into a Tramway north of Billings. And run as in-median LRT south all the way to Greely. That would do a hell of a lot more for the city and Bank St than a 5 km subway ever will. And would work fantastically with Trillium and the Southeast Transitway.

A street with only transit, pedestrians and cyclists. I know. It's beyond the processing capacity of this hicktown.