Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Again, for context, QED has never closed at Lansdowne (for better or worse). It's also worth noting that Lansdowne is a very parking-lite site, containing only 1300 stalls, most of which are actually closed during major events, precisely to avoid overwhelming Bank. When you see 30 000-40 000 people in the stadium, remember that a maximum of 500 of them are using the parking.

If Bank is closed, and QED is closed between Fifth and Somerset, then Bronson and Preston become the only options to access it. The new Civic Hospital and Dow's Lake TOD will increase traffic in that area significantly. By closing Bank, we create a choke point south-west of downtown.

Our goal as light-metro supporters is not to promote driving, but to keep all surface modes flowing and improve transit throughout the central part of the system, and the south suburbs. We're not proposing improvements for drivers, but the status quo.

Cars are here to stay, so we do have to design our city to prevent over-congestion. Don't make it easier for drivers, but don't go out of our way to make it harder.

[Truenorth00]

Maybe they shouldn't close QED?

Just saying.

The city can make a choice to close Bank to cars and declare it a vital transit and commercial corridor, in favour of displacing that traffic to Bronson and QED.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Cars are here to stay, so we do have to design our city to prevent over-congestion. Don't make it easier for drivers, but don't go out of our way to make it harder.

I don't necessarily disagree with this philosophy. But by that logic, the loss of the single lane of traffic per direction on Bank street should already be in the bag, considering that a lane has been freed up for car use on Nicholas and on the Hurdman bridge when heading to/from the south via Riverside. Or the added lane on Albert/Slater might mean we can remove through-traffic from Somerset. Or that the Alta Vista Expressway should mean that we can pedestrianize Elgin and Main.

I guess the flaw in the implementation is that we have spent decades increasing vehicular capacity, and we continue to do so. But once it's added it's seen as an immutable - almost natural - feature. As a result, we don't see these kinds of swaps, even when it makes the entire system much more effective and even when it would not materially impact car trips. Let's remember that this is a single lane per direction, and is (despite its geographic directness) already slower to drive on than the various alternatives to the east and west. This isn't exactly severing some essential link.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't necessarily disagree with this philosophy. But by that logic, the loss of the single lane of traffic per direction on Bank street should already be in the bag, considering that a lane has been freed up for car use on Nicholas and on the Hurdman bridge when heading to/from the south via Riverside. Or the added lane on Albert/Slater might mean we can remove through-traffic from Somerset. Or that the Alta Vista Expressway should mean that we can pedestrianize Elgin and Main.

I guess the flaw in the implementation is that we have spent decades increasing vehicular capacity, and we continue to do so. But once it's added it's seen as an immutable - almost natural - feature. As a result, we don't see these kinds of swaps, even when it makes the entire system much more effective and even when it would not materially impact car trips.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Nicholas and Hurdman Bridges. Temporary bus lanes were added on Nicholas during Stage 1 construction, but no additional capacity over the last 10 years.

Bus lanes on Albert and Slater will be re-dedicated to active transportation sometime in the next few years.

The Hospital Link was a dumb project. It should have been built as a Transitway and emergency vehicle access. The few times I went by, it was barely used. If it's ever extended to Nicholas, then that could give some fuel to the close Bank camp.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I partially agree. I definitely agree that looking at ION's overall speeds (25km/h) is overly optimistic because it has a lot of off-street portions. The urban section is more representative. However, there are some important distinctions, notably the number of sharp turns (which have to be taken very slowly), significant number of well-trafficked cross-streets, and complex turning movements which make signal priority less effective than it would otherwise be. Bank street, on the other hand, has a grand total of 4 non-local cross-streets, is straight as an arrow, and would not benefit from much simpler signals by not sharing the street with cross-traffic.

In any case, maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but GRT says it's an even 15 minutes for the 4.8 km between Borden and Willis Way stations = 19.2 km/h.

Considering that's still including all the above constraints, 20 km/h seems a reasonably conservative number.

You're absolutely right about the schedule. I apologize. I looked at the pdf timetable for Mill to Waterloo Public Square a while back and I must've accidentally used the Laurier-Waterloo Park time instead of the Waterloo Public Square time.

- Mill to Waterloo Public Square is is 21 mins over a 6.3 km stretch, which equates to 18 km/h
- Willis to Borden is 18 mins over 6 kms ---> 20 km/h

In other words, you were pretty on point with the 20 km/h estimate, so my apologies once again. Using your estimates, the overall time difference for Queen to Billings works out to about 13.5 mins by tram vs about 7.7 mins by subway (35 km/h).

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Yes, but both of these numbers assume that people materialize on the train and that their destination is the platform. My whole point is that the useful metric is the average door-to-door trip, including the average walk to and from the station (one quarter of the average stop spacing on both ends), platform access time, and waiting time.

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing your point about the door-to-door time savings with the tram option. I fully acknowledge that the surface tram option is better for local trips. My point was purely related to the overall run time between Billings and Queen.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Entertaining your 14 km/h, it's 19.5 minutes for the underground, and 23 minutes on the surface. At what I consider a much more reasonable 20 km/h, it's 17.5 minutes. But even at a 3.5 minute difference, it's a pretty slim difference for the added cost. And even then... even with a transfer at Hurdman, you can already get there in almost the same amount of time (24 minutes).

And keep in mind that this is the most favourable distance for an underground option. For all trips shorter than the entire length of this hypothetical line, its access time means it falls further and further behind the surface alternative. So at absolute best, we'd be paying 3-4x more for a line which results in comparable trip times to today (via Transitway) between the termini, plus significantly longer trips for all other trips.

You're correct in theory, but all this hinges on the ability to implement an exclusive ROW along Bank north of Billings. Otherwise, we're looking at a mixed traffic scenario that will certainly result in a lower average speeds. And as I mentioned earlier, I think that's out of the question south of the Queensway. There's also the question of station sizes and space for them, which will hinge on anticipated ridership. If we intend to turn this line into the main North-South transit spine 25 years from now, some stations will need to be fairly large, especially for places like Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think it's difficult, because you're right that there aren't a lot of people who knowingly go out of their way to promote the idea of "facilitating cars". But there are a lot of more passive ways in which we unknowingly end up accomplishing the same thing, such as the quote below.

I understand what you're saying, but that statement implies that facilitating cars is the principle motive of the subway idea when it clearly isn't. It's just a bad faith argument. If anything, a subway would maintain the status quo for Bank, but it wouldn't rule out a more sustainable street configuration by any means.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

It's not that the concerns aren't valid or wouldn't require some sort of resolution. It's rather that when you really think about them, they're not really that inextricable. But if you don't go out of your way to really look at it, it's easier to conceive of spending billions boring a tunnel rather than, say, having "authorized vehicles only" signs or parking the occasional delivery vehicle 20m away on a side street. We've now grown 3-4 generations in the automobile age, so like with so many other things, it's natural that we have certain assumptions which we don't question, or solutions which don't immediately come to mind. To see the ether we've grown up in requires a lot of effort and will, and unless you're particularly interested in that particular field, I don't really blame anyone for not putting in the work.

What I want and what the reality on the ground is are two very different things. I typically try to meet them half way as means to push the envelope in softer manner. Some of these car-free ideas are still radical to a lot of people and we're not going to get anywhere by trying to force it down their throats. I see it as an iterative process.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not to me. Because it's not a strawman.

It's a strawman when you imply it's the advocates' principal motive when it clearly isn't.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Directly? No. But the entire subtext of this pitch is that a surface solution is unacceptable because of the mixed traffic. And that mixed traffic can't be changed because we can't remove the cars. So we have to add a billion dollars and go underground because we aren't willing to take cars off bank.

- Is surface rail unacceptable? Certainly not. You're the only one saying that.
- Is a surface option in mixed traffic an effective solution for the purpose we're suggesting? Ideally, no, because it would be quite slow.
- Can a surface option work well in an exclusive ROW? Yes, in theory.
- Is a fully exclusive ROW on the surface realistic for the entirety of Bank? No, unfortunately it isn't.

It's funny to me, because in one breath you argue that LRT all the way out to suburban Stittsville should take precedence over a rail project in more urban parts of the city (which many of us want to see extended to serve Vanier as well, mind you), and then you argue against it because it apparently facilitates cars. There's some irony there.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I understand what you're saying, but that statement implies that facilitating cars is the principle motive of the subway idea when it clearly isn't. It's just a bad faith argument. If anything, a subway would maintain the status quo for Bank, but it wouldn't rule out a more sustainable street configuration by any means.

The objective of taking traffic out of the way of transit on Bank isn't to remove traffic for the sake of removing traffic. It's to improve transit service.

My observations about how an underground system would result in significantly lengthened trip times for the kinds of trips taking place along Bank. No one seems to contest the assumptions or the math that I've proposed to arrive at that conclusion. Some posters do appear to take issue with questions of political will and car traffic, which I acknowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm inferring from that that a tunnel would have to be built because of political will and car traffic. And if I am wrong, then what would be the argument for the tunnel if it neither about maintaining car traffic or about improving transit trip durations?



As an aside, I resent the accusation of bad-faith argument. I go out of my way to be civil and to consider everyone's arguments at face value.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

As an aside, I resent the accusation of bad-faith argument. I go out of my way to be civil and to consider everyone's arguments at face value.

I think you've misunderstood me. My comment was in response to Truenorth's comment which implied that those of us advocating for a subway are doing so to facilitate cars on Bank. I took issue with that because it deliberately misrepresents my position on the matter, as well as others'.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

- Is surface rail unacceptable? Certainly not. You're the only one saying that.

What? There's been quite a few posters who argue that surface rail would be inadequate because of the need for vehicular access. Just look a few posts up on the discussion about where cars would go if Bank was closed.

Sure. Bank St subway advocates don't argue it directly. But the sum of their arguments certainly lead to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

- Is a fully exclusive ROW on the surface realistic for the entirety of Bank? No, unfortunately it isn't.

And nobody has suggested it for the "entirety of Bank". I've personally said at least till Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's funny to me, because in one breath you argue that LRT all the way out to suburban Stittsville should take precedence over a rail project in more urban parts of the city (which many of us want to see extended to serve Vanier as well, mind you), and then you argue against it because it apparently facilitates cars. There's some irony there.

Personally, I would rate a Rideau-Montreal streetcar higher than most other projects. But that aside, I have zero issues arguing for a Stittsville LRT extension over a Bank St. subway. Ultimately they both serve suburban commuters. As Aylmer has shown, active transport is actually pretty high along Bank. So you're not advocating for a subway to serve locals. Which then begs the question why should suburbanites in the South, who already have the Trillium Line, be prioritized over suburbanites in the West, who have no rail service?

If you had asked me to support a Bank St. tram over a Stittsville Confederation Line extension, you'd have my support. But that's not what most Bank St advocates want. They want a duplication of the capacity of the Trillium Line, only under Bank St. And at the end of the day, they want it buried because they either don't believe or support eliminating traffic from the corridor.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What? There's been quite a few posters who argue that surface rail would be inadequate because of the need for vehicular access. Just look a few posts up on the discussion about where cars would go if Bank was closed.

Sure. Bank St subway advocates don't argue it directly. But the sum of their arguments certainly lead to that conclusion.

I see what you're saying, but I think most of us see it as infeasible rather than unacceptable. The argument doesn't stem from some car-worshipping creed that sees the concept of car-free streets as blasphemous. It's moreso the opinion that it's just not suitable or feasible for that area due to a multitude of reasons.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And nobody has suggested it for the "entirety of Bank". I've personally said at least till Lansdowne.

As in downtown to Lansdowne? If so, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, though, I don't see at as feasible between the Queensway and Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Personally, I would rate a Rideau-Montreal streetcar higher than most other projects. But that aside, I have zero issues arguing for a Stittsville LRT extension over a Bank St. subway. Ultimately they both serve suburban commuters. As Aylmer has shown, active transport is actually pretty high along Bank. So you're not advocating for a subway to serve locals. Which then begs the question why should suburbanites in the South, who already have the Trillium Line, be prioritized over suburbanites in the West, who have no rail service?

Because suburbanites in the West have a direct line to downtown as it is, while southern commuters have to contend with transfers onto already-packed trains at Bayview and Hurdman, which will only worsen over time.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If you had asked me to support a Bank St. tram over a Stittsville Confederation Line extension, you'd have my support. But that's not what most Bank St advocates want. They want a duplication of the capacity of the Trillium Line, only under Bank St. And at the end of the day, they want it buried because they either don't believe or support eliminating traffic from the corridor.

Sort of. To be clear, I think the vast majority of us envision the existing Trillium line, south of of Greenboro/South Keys to be converted and connected with the Bank subway to create a continuous high-capacity RT service between the south and downtown.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I see what you're saying, but I think most of us see it as infeasible rather than unacceptable. The argument doesn't stem from some car-worshipping creed that sees the concept of car-free streets as blasphemous. It's moreso the opinion that it's just not suitable or feasible for that area due to a multitude of reasons.

Unfortunately, a lot of those reasons basically boil down to, "We can't remove cars, so we have to bury transit."

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

As in downtown to Lansdowne? If so, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, though, I don't see at as feasible between the Queensway and Lansdowne.

Feasibility is just a matter of will. The traffic can easily be displaced to Bronson and QED. Let's be honest. Insisting that it's not feasible isn't so much a statement of fact, as it is a statement of judgment based on a distinct preference.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Because suburbanites in the West have a direct line to downtown as it is, while southern commuters have to contend with transfers onto already-packed trains at Bayview and Hurdman, which will only worsen over time.

If this is the concern, no subway is needed. A tram line to carry local traffic and commuters from South Keys to downtown would work just fine. Especially since all the Riverside South traffic will still be on the Trillium Line. Heck, it's even possible to interline the Riverside South portion and the Bank St trams. What's the argument to spend the extra billion dollars to bury the line?

There's a case for higher order transit on Bank. But the threshold to then upgrade that to fully grade separated is substantially higher, because the cost to do is substantially higher.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Sort of. To be clear, I think the vast majority of us envision the existing Trillium line, south of of Greenboro/South Keys to be converted and connected with the Bank subway to create a continuous high-capacity RT service between the south and downtown.

So the extra billion to save some people from Riverside South a transfer and save 4-5 min for the trip along Bank? There are so many better places to spend that money and improve the transit experience.

[Beedok]

If Hamilton can plan to put surface LRT down a stretch like this, then Ottawa can have surface LRT on Bank.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Unfortunately, a lot of those reasons basically boil down to, "We can't remove cars, so we have to bury transit."

Sure, because reductive reasoning has always been a great way to critically assess an idea.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Feasibility is just a matter of will. The traffic can easily be displaced to Bronson and QED. Let's be honest. Insisting that it's not feasible isn't so much a statement of fact, as it is a statement of judgment based on a distinct preference.

Is it really that simple? Alright then, let's go enforce our will over that of Glebe residents, Bank Street businesses and the Bank BIA, and convince transportation planners and elected officials that there'll be no issues with removing one of only 2 north-south arterials. I'm sure they'll agree with us that the already-congested and narrow Bronson can handle the added load and reduced LOS (which is already at LOS E at the Carling intersection btw).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If this is the concern, no subway is needed. A tram line to carry local traffic and commuters from South Keys to downtown would work just fine. Especially since all the Riverside South traffic will still be on the Trillium Line. Heck, it's even possible to interline the Riverside South portion and the Bank St trams. What's the argument to spend the extra billion dollars to bury the line?

A surface line would have to be mixed traffic for the majority of the ROW, meaning it will not be very timely or reliable, and thus would probably not do a great job of diverting traffic from Bayview and Hurdman, especially if there's a transfer involved.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a case for higher order transit on Bank. But the threshold to then upgrade that to fully grade separated is substantially higher, because the cost to do is substantially higher.

I agree, but we're talking about 20+ years from now at the earliest when Ottawa is forecasted to have 400k more people (not including Gatineau growth), many of which will probably settle in the fast-growing areas of RSS, Bowesville and Findlay Creek.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So the extra billion to save some people from Riverside South a transfer and save 4-5 min for the trip along Bank? There are so many better places to spend that money and improve the transit experience.

No. At this point I don't know if you're not reading what's been said or if you're just purposely ignoring it to troll. Myself and others have mentioned numerous times that the issue is Line 1 capacity at Bayview and Hurdman, not now but in the next 2-3 decades.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Sure, because reductive reasoning has always been a great way to critically assess an idea.

Truth hurts?

Again. Want to prove my argument wrong? Make the case for why specifically a grade separated line is needed 2 km from another. Because right now, all I see are excuses on why local transit can't be done. And none of these arguments are based on any kind of demand forecast. Only the idea that mixed running can't be done or that cars can't be removed.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Is it really that simple? Alright then, let's go enforce our will over that of Glebe residents, Bank Street businesses and the Bank BIA, and convince transportation planners and elected officials that there'll be no issues with removing one of only 2 north-south arterials. I'm sure they'll agree with us that the already-congested and narrow Bronson can handle the added load and reduced LOS (which is already at LOS E at the Carling intersection btw).

If they don't want to agree, that's just fine. Don't build a subway underneath Bank.

I would make the same argument for Carling, Rideau, Montreal, etc corridors. You don't build billion dollar transit lines through areas opposed to densification and pedestrianization. That's a massive waste.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I agree, but we're talking about 20+ years from now at the earliest when Ottawa is forecasted to have 400k more people (not including Gatineau growth), many of which will probably settle in the fast-growing areas of RSS, Bowesville and Findlay Creek.

Most of them will be on the Trillium Line though.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

A surface line would have to be mixed traffic for the majority of the ROW, meaning it will not be very timely or reliable, and thus would probably not do a great job of diverting traffic from Bayview and Hurdman, especially if there's a transfer involved.

How much is in mixed traffic is a matter of policy and design. But given the length of the whole corridor, this really isn't that much of a issue. Ever used the St-Clair streetcar in Toronto? This would be even better than that.

And again this gets to the point I was making earlier. What's the intent of this project? When you start talking about diverting passengers from Bayview, you're basically talking about splitting ridership with Trillium, basically spending billions to deprecate the billion already spent on Trillium.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

No. At this point I don't know if you're not reading what's been said or if you're just purposely ignoring it to troll. Myself and others have mentioned numerous times that the issue is Line 1 capacity at Bayview and Hurdman, not now but in the next 2-3 decades.

You're still not making a case for grade separation. A Bank St tramway funneling all of Bank/South Keys local traffic to Parliament would provide all the relief needed. Where's the case to spend the billion on top of that to grade separate?

See the diagram below. So in your estimate, 20-30 years from now, Ottawa will need a Trillium line at 10-20k pphpd and a Bank St subway at 20-30k pphpd, 2 km away? Are you envisioning Bank St becoming like Broadway in Manhattan?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Truth hurts?

Troll much? I don't like wasting my time arguing petty commentary. Sorry.

Every point you've made has already been addressed. It's up to you to actually acknowledge it. No point in wasting my time repeating myself.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Troll much? I don't like wasting my time arguing petty commentary. Sorry.

Every point you've made has already been addressed. It's up to you to actually acknowledge it. No point in wasting my time repeating myself.

Essentially what every debate on the Bank St. subway comes too.

"I have no defence with numbers. So I'll simply accuse the other guy of trolling."

It's really simple. You say we need two fully grade separated heavy rail corridors 2 km (max) apart because of (potential) congestion at one transfer point. What exactly do you think is going to develop on Bank St and what kind of pphpd do you imagine materializes, that needs this kind of investment?

I don't expect an answer. Because let's be honest, Bank subway advocates never thought about this beyond a line on a map. But I expect any federal and provincial bureaucrat looking at a request to fund what would be the longest, double subway corridor in the country, might just have a few questions on why all of the Glebe isn't 30 storey condos.

[biguc]

Some good, deep discussion in this thread. Some of you are getting heated but there seems to be a general consensus that Bank should have higher-order transit and traffic restrictions. Sounds great!

Just to spitball an idea to that effect: I don't know why we don't do cut-and-cover tunnelling anymore. Unnecessarily spending billions on tunnelling to not disrupt traffic for a year or two is the ultimate in foolhardy concessions to drivers.

To me it seems like a great opportunity for a road diet. Give people a break from using a route by digging it up. Install a metro line (it could be something small, even like Budapest's dinky line 1, which is basically an underground tram), and cap over it with a narrower street with more space for pedestrians and cyclists.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

It already largely is. Everything in the non-dark blue areas of the map have a car mode share of <50%.



In most of the urban Bank neighbourhoods, bicycle use (15-25%) outpaces car and transit use (10-20%) and walking is the dominant mode (30-60%). This is in part because car through-traffic makes transit much less useful than it could be. I suspect it's also because people in these areas tend to have short commutes downtown, so transit has to be very competitive to justify the cost. Transit here isn't competing with car trips and $300/mo parking passes - it's competing with walking and biking which don't cost a dime. And for these short distances, transit can quickly become uncompetitive, or at least not competitive enough for the cost of a ticket. If I take my hypothetical 2km trip from earlier, the surface gets you there in 10 minutes, the underground takes almost 15. Walking takes about 23 minutes, and I can bike it in 10. The competitivity of transit in these areas is pretty marginal considering it also costs $3.65 or $100+/mo, so even a few minutes make a big difference in the modal equation. Not for everyone (mobility challenges, carrying items, etc.), but as the 60% mode shares of walking show, most people have the luxury of weighing their mode choices.

That's really, really good to see. It'll be easier than I thought!

I do mean all trips though, not just commutes that originate there. There's a difference in how Europe and Canada measure these things and it's pretty meaningful on the ground. When you're in Copenhagen and 50% of trips are bike bike, you're in a serene cyclist's paradise. When you're in Vancouver and 50% of trips are by bike, you're very much not. You're still bombarded by car traffic from the suburbs, or from people not commuting at that moment but driving around for other reasons.

Ideally, you want to bring all trips in that area down bellow 50%. That's a bit tougher. Especially when a highway runs through it. But if you saturate the area with good transit, and prioritize that transit's place on streets, it will happen.


That map is really nice, by the way. Where did you find it?

[biguc]

One other point; some people seem worried about deliveries on Bank if it closed to cars. There's no reason delivery vehicles can't travel onto a closed street to make deliveries.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5210...m1!1e3!5m1!1e2
Berlin Alexanderplatz is a big pedestrianized area. Trams run through it (a benefit of trams over busses) but no cars. Delivery vehicles, however, are free to simply drive into the platz. I assume something similar must happen on Sparks street.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Essentially what every debate on the Bank St. subway comes too.

"I have no defence with numbers. So I'll simply accuse the other guy of trolling."

It's really simple. You say we need two fully grade separated heavy rail corridors 2 km (max) apart because of (potential) congestion at one transfer point. What exactly do you think is going to develop on Bank St and what kind of pphpd do you imagine materializes, that needs this kind of investment?

I don't expect an answer. Because let's be honest, Bank subway advocates never thought about this beyond a line on a map. But I expect any federal and provincial bureaucrat looking at a request to fund what would be the longest, double subway corridor in the country, might just have a few questions on why all of the Glebe isn't 30 storey condos.

Says the guy who thinks feasibility is simply a matter of will. I'm so terribly sorry I wasn't able to put together a 25+ year ridership forecast to discuss a transit idea on a forum.

You can keep propping up strawmen and knocking them down to your own delight. Couldn't care less. I excused myself from this discussion when your arguments turned ignorant and petty. So you're right, you shouldn't expect an answer from me. But do enjoy convincing yourself it's because of your very "substantive" arguments. Ciao!

[Beedok]

My simple solution to improve transit to the Glebe: run a bus down O’Conner and/or Percy. If Old Ottawa South ends up also really needing better transit, build a bus only bridge across the canal. Way cheaper than a subway line, and would probably provided all the additional transit a neighbourhood that’s largely single family homes (or students who are going to Carleton anyway) would need any time soon.