Sparks Street

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Transfers aren't necessarily a huge problem, provided that they are combined with frequent service. My fear is that the frequent service will never materialize, given that we don't even have it on streets like Bronson.

The current mentality on city council is that each new rider costs taxpayers money therefore why would we really experiment with improving service? The mindset is rather, introduce bigger buses. It is only a 'few minutes longer wait'. Of course, if this occurs a number of times, what quality of service do we end up with? For example, Route 6 used to have 10 minute headways during off-peak hours. It was a transfer route. But we added a few minutes to wait times over and over again and eventually it became useless as a transfer route. Now, it only runs every 30 minutes during peak periods and there is no service during off-peak hours. So, with congestion reaching the breaking point in the Glebe and a new Lansdowne soon to open, we offer next to no east-west transit service.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by defishel

Government intervention? To stop policies that subsidize the suburbs and disadvantage the downtown as happened after the War. I know this is the case with the States, but it may be the case for Canada, too. At least, that's what I'm reading in A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America.

Perhaps I just want to play Devil's advocate for a bit, but why would we want to have government intervention to make the downtown core (e.g. spots like Sparks St.) more vibrant? Why not desire non-downtown core areas within the greenbelt to be vibrant as well?

There must've been what sounded like good reason for subsidizing the suburbs at the time?

[teej1984]

Lower the rents on sparks and encourage start-ups to locate there! There are a bunch of buildings which I'm sure could be maximized into cool spaces for small businesses.

Or maybe we just accept the fact that there is really nothing that can be done for sparks street. We use a lot of social capital trying to figure out how to improve it, when maybe it just needs to be what it is.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Perhaps I just want to play Devil's advocate for a bit, but why would we want to have government intervention to make the downtown core (e.g. spots like Sparks St.) more vibrant? Why not desire non-downtown core areas within the greenbelt to be vibrant as well?

There must've been what sounded like good reason for subsidizing the suburbs at the time?

Isn't there already a lot of government intervention on Sparks Street? Isn't that part of the problem? When we hear about the language clauses being put into leases, how are we not distorting market forces? It seems to me that the federal government may not be the best of landlords or at least that perception may be out there, making private business hesitant to move in.

The subsidization of the suburbs has everything to do with transportation policy, suburban politics and the desires of the public to live in a quieter suburban environment. At the same time, particularly transportation policy makes it almost impossible to create a vibrant suburban core. It has been attempted a number of times with little to show for it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think it would be very important to have at least small entrances to the LRT stations on Sparks: considering it's one of the more pleasant streets to walk down in Downtown, direct entrances would enliven the street with through-traffic and encourage more resident-oriented businesses to set up shop along there.

But that would require spending extra money, and in Ottawa, only the basics will do. Our only hope is that private companies step up to make it easier to access Sparks from the subway stations.

Brookfield should revisit the underground mall entrances as well as the redevelopment of the Podium Building to make the underground easy and inviting to access as well as adding wayfinding directing people to the subway.

Morguard should stop talking about the possibilities of connection and actually sit down with the City to discuss concrete plans to connect their buildings along with entrances (via their buildings if need be) to the stations.

Although it's not on Sparks, the World Exchange should seriously have direct access to Parliament Station, especially if the theatre ends up staying open.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, express routes are not sustainable but I get nervous when I see previous proposals that require transfers even from central neighbourhoods such as Preston Street.

Don't worry; sometimes Vivi Chi takes the bus and she is aware of your concerns.

[ortelius]

Ottawa Heritage Streetcar Concept. Route: "Loop 1A".
video tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgGA...ature=youtu.be

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by phil235

Transfers aren't necessarily a huge problem, provided that they are combined with frequent service. My fear is that the frequent service will never materialize, given that we don't even have it on streets like Bronson.

I agree on this. I think the biggest fear I have with transfers is that I will get the transfer point and then have to wait 15+ minutes. If I have to wait a few minutes, ok. But it should be often enough that I don't feel I have to worry that my transfer won't be there.

[lrt's friend]

Considering the high transit ridership in this city, why has the concept of guaranteed service frequency not been considered on key routes? Customer service really does not appear to be in the mindset of our transit commission. For the next 4 years, they are blinded by the building the Confederation Line and figure that this will solve all problems. It will not. And with the opening of Lansdowne Park in just 6 months, we have not seen a concrete plan that will provide adequate transit service on Bank Street and that will actually deliver real improved service to the customer. Everything will be focused on providing the minimim service at the least cost with the expected crush loading of vehicles at critical times. And the end result being that the majority of the public will continue to have to use a car to get there.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by ortelius

Ottawa Heritage Streetcar Concept. Route: "Loop 1A".
video tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgGA...ature=youtu.be

Great video and concept. I think a lot of residents and tourists would welcome this streetcar line.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Considering the high transit ridership in this city, why has the concept of guaranteed service frequency not been considered on key routes? Customer service really does not appear to be in the mindset of our transit commission.

They seem to be more interested in using less resources (buses/drivers) to carry the same amount of existing and growth ridership. And if making (minor) frequency reductions on a major bus route achieves that by assigning a high capacity bus (artic or double decker), that's what they will do. This is their way in achieving efficiencies through their "loading standards".

Since Route Optimization, I've noticed that they've been doing this a bit more aggressively over the last couple of years. Route 114 use to operate every 10-minutes between Hurdman and Elmvale during the weekday midday (with every third trip continuing onto Greenboro). Now Route 114 operate every 15-minutes with an artic, with every second trip continuing to Greenboro. Express routes with double deckers are another example.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

Great video and concept. I think a lot of residents and tourists would welcome this streetcar line.

A single restored streetcar on a unidirectional loop? I don't see it being feasible nor reliable. There's no way it can have convenient frequency or keep a regular schedule being in mixed traffic like that. Good luck to doing the Mackenzie-Wellington-Elgin-Sparks manoeuvre in the middle of the day. A similar thing could be achieved with shuttle buses at a fraction of the cost, like Winnipeg's Downtown Spirit, which is free.

Completely off topic, but if I were to run a heritage streetcar route, I would do it to promote other parts of the city. My choice is Somerset Street West — run it from the foot of Corktown bridge to Hintonburg Square (3 kms). It would connect several downtown districts — Elgin Street, Somerset Village/Bank Street, Chinatown, Little Italy and Hintonburg. It could also link the uOttawa LRT Station across the canal to a possible O-train stop between Somerset and Gladstone. It could run on a single track on one side of the road. but at the halfway point at Dundonald Park, there could be a double track station so it can be possible to run two cars on the system like the O-Train. The tracks switch to running on the other side of the road from there.



Most of this route west of Bank was a streetcar route. Keeping it within the City of Ottawa also eliminates the red tape dealing with the NCC and Gatineau.

[Aylmer]

I think that the true value of streetcars from an urban design perspective is as a 'pedestrian accelerator' - stitching together hubs of activity which are separated by unwalkable borders like overpasses/bridges, industrial areas, highways, long distances or otherwise. In that respect, it would go a long way to connect the Downtown Ottawa and Hull (separated long distance and bridge). But Sparks already being a highly walkable axis, I don't think that it would have the transformational value of areas such as the Pearl District in Portland (the most heavily-cited example).

Of course, there's the whole aspect of increased property values, but I think that might actually make things worse for Sparks which is too expensive to allow lower-rent, everyday elements such as affordable housing, grocery stores or small pharmacies (i.e. NOT SHOPPERS' DRUGMART). If there were some way to allocate more of that space to these affordable uses and keep it affordable, I don't see how a streetcar would do any harm.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will not. And with the opening of Lansdowne Park in just 6 months, we have not seen a concrete plan that will provide adequate transit service on Bank Street and that will actually deliver real improved service to the customer.

I'd start by not restricting transit service to Lansdowne to Bank Street.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JCL

They seem to be more interested in using less resources (buses/drivers) to carry the same amount of existing and growth ridership. And if making (minor) frequency reductions on a major bus route achieves that by assigning a high capacity bus (artic or double decker), that's what they will do. This is their way in achieving efficiencies through their "loading standards".

Actually, their way the last few years was to reduce frequencies on city-central routes, reassign 40-footers to those central routes that used to have artics, or both.

This problem was especially acute on the "improved!" No. 12 after it was stupidly split from the 2.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Most of this route west of Bank was a streetcar route. Keeping it within the City of Ottawa also eliminates the red tape dealing with the NCC and Gatineau.

But it goes within five zillion feet of the Rideau Canal and its precious World Heritage designation!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Actually, their way the last few years was to reduce frequencies on city-central routes, reassign 40-footers to those central routes that used to have artics, or both.

This problem was especially acute on the "improved!" No. 12 after it was stupidly split from the 2.

I will concede that I have seen a 40-footer onto Route 12 (as well as a Route 95) - that I believe is through interlining without taking into cosideration of what bus type is actually needed for that route/trip. But what I was explaining earlier was the general principle of how they are planning service these days from my observation.

As for the split for Routes 2/12 - The original Route 2 was a very long crosstown stop-and-go route that would always become late and unreliable. Their approach was to split the route into two separate routes so that they don't cause a "ripple affect" city wide along with that original route. So now with the changes that went in effect after the 2008-09 strike, if Route 12 is running late (for whatever reason), someone who is in the Westboro area would still get a bus arriving on-time (or close to on-time) through the revised Route 2.

[J.OT13]

I like the heritage streetcar idea, but I think a heritage streetcar-looking bus would be much more feasible not to mention affordable. They won't get a cent from the Feds or the City so might as well come up with a cheaper concept.

That said, if we build a loop, might as well build a full fledged TO type streetcar as an actual transit line for commuters.

[Aylmer]

Ugh, these things?



God forbid - I already find heritage streetcars a little kitschy, but these 'trolleys' have all the tackiness, but none of the quality or charm. They exude cheapness and a lack of taste.

A thousand times no to a bus trolley.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by JCL

As for the split for Routes 2/12 - The original Route 2 was a very long crosstown stop-and-go route that would always become late and unreliable. Their approach was to split the route into two separate routes so that they don't cause a "ripple affect" city wide along with that original route. So now with the changes that went in effect after the 2008-09 strike, if Route 12 is running late (for whatever reason), someone who is in the Westboro area would still get a bus arriving on-time (or close to on-time) through the revised Route 2.

Except now you have two routes which are frequently off-time and unreliable, and one less way to travel through the downtown core without changing buses.

Problem solved? Nope. Problem introduced? Yup.