Canadians want to live, work, and play near public transit

Building on my post yesterday about Ottawa's $72M investment in transit-oriented development, it's interesting to see that more and more Canadians are choosing proximity to transit--and especially rail-based transit--as a key factor in deciding where they'd like to live.

As documented in a Globe and Mail article, consultancy firm PwC (formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers) recently published a report entitled "Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2014." A partner at PwC told the Globe that more and more Canadians are seeing access to transit as a legitimate and foremost consideration when house-shopping:

"With challenging infrastructure in all major Canadian centres coupled with the urbanization trend, there will be a continued demand for retail, office and residential space in our urban centres where there is easy access to mass transit."

In fact, Ottawa's investment in transit and cycling infrastructure also falls in line with the lifestyle preferences of generation Y residents, according to the report:

"Gen Y takes transit, walks, and bikes. Of all the generations, generation Y is the most likely to use transit daily, or at least once per week."

Although Ottawa's decision to move towards rail-based high speed transit is overdue, the city's well-placed to take advantage of these demographics and lifestyle preferences. There's ample room for intensification within Ottawa's Greenbelt, including around the rail stations that will be found along the Confederation Line and, in the future, near the further-out stations along the Stage 2 phase of the light-rail system.

In an ideal world, these preferences will lead to a reinvigoration of those parts of downtown near the Central Business District, including Sparks Street Mall, which seem like dead zones outside of the business hours. Hopefully PWGSC and the NCC are able to recognize the opportunities presented by a more lively downtown and invest some resources to enable a transition towards multi-use development in the core.

Ottawa's upcoming $72M investment in transit-oriented development

According to the Ottawa Citizen, the City of Ottawa is budgeting to spend about $72M in order to provide adequate water, sewer, road, and electrical services to three east Ottawa Confederation Line stations in order to enable the level of transit-oriented development that city staff are envisioning around the light rail stops.

The stations included in this $72M investment (as I'd like to think of it) are Lees, Hurdman, and Blair. The biggest price tag within that overall envelope is an estimated $25M to improve cycling infrastructure around and connecting to the stations, which seems like a wise concept that might allow people living and working in the area to forego personal automobiles in favour of cycling and transit (and, if the visions of progressive citizens become reality, bike- and car-sharing when necessary).

From the Citizen:

Lees, on the edge of the University of Ottawa campus, needs the least work: a mere $11 million, much of that in upgraded electricity service.
Hurdman, just across the Rideau River but practically isolated with fields on three sides (thanks to its location amid old closed landfills), needs the most: $35 million, with sewer pipes making up $15 million.
Blair, much farther east, needs $26 million worth of work, and the single biggest chunk of that is $13 million to improve the almost nonexistent bike routes to and from a station that’s tucked between the Gloucester Centre mall and a Highway 174 overpass.

I consider this a $72M investment, rather than an expense, because of the long-term benefits that would come as a result of encouraging higher-density and less car-dependent living around transit stations, and it seems likely that development charges around these stations may be able to recoup some of the costs. It's good to see the city putting money where their mouths are when discussing transit-oriented development, and hopefully developers and businesses also recognize the benefits of building in the vicinity of major rail stations.

uOttawa wanted its name on Lees LRT Station

If the University of Ottawa had its way, we would see "uOttawa - Canal" and "uOttawa - Lees" signs at LRT stations. According to the Citizen, the downtown university wanted both uOttawa and Lees LRT Stations to be named after the school.

The similar names can be confusing for new transit users and first-year Ottawa U students. Besides the school having an issue, there weren't any publicly known concerns raised with the name "Lees". The problem with naming it "uOttawa - Lees" is that Lees Ottawa U campus isn't the only destination the Confederation Line will serve. Existing high-rise apartments are in close proximity to the station and the city wants to intensify the surrounding area. Taking on the university's proposed name conflicts with the city's transit-oriented development goals, especially when the name of the school comes first.

LRT Planning

It's been a while since my last post and much has changed about the LRT project in a year.  Since the tunnel was moved north to Queen Street, this massive transit project is becoming less and less of what I would imagine it to be.

By now, we know that staying within the budget seems to be the only reason for moving the tunnel further north and building Rideau station further east.  This is disappointing since city planning is taking a back-seat to political promises.  While still within the core, the downtown tunnel has somewhat moved further away from the denser areas.  The new location for Rideau station will no longer be serving Elgin Street with much higher density than the Sandy Hill neighbourhood.

Rideau station should remain where it was initially planned and the station at O'Connor Street be placed eastwards towards Metcalfe Street.  That way, the same number of stations remain and Elgin Street is better served.  The Mayor is correct to say that an extra station will slow down service, especially when Ottawa's density in the downtown core is no where near close to Toronto's.  Having the stations too close leads to unnecessary stopping when the density isn't there.

Plopping a station here and instead of there isn't easy and requires much more time and money.  If the money is the issue, which it always seems to be, we could delay another project and use those funds for this project.  There is no other future project in Ottawa near the magnitude of this one and this is one of the few that will benefit the entire city.

Money could be saved by not re-constructing Train station and not having it at all.  Instead, bus service to the Tremblay VIA station from Hurdman or St. Laurent stations could be coordinated with VIA schedules. There is supposed to be some new development for Train station once it re-opens as an light-rail station.  But, it isn't guaranteed.  Besides the few apartment buildings, new development around Cyrville and Hurdman stations has been disappointing since the Transitway was built.  Currently, Train station seems to the least-used Transitway station that will be served by light-rail.  With the Transitway, all stops are requested, unlike light-rail, at least in Ottawa's case, trains are required to stop at all stations.  If there were a station that will slow down the system, Train station would be the front-running candidate.  Having trains stop with few people getting on or off doesn't seem very cost-effective.

We could shorten the LRT line to Bayview station or St. Laurent station and use that money for fixing the planned downtown portion.  Of course, some may look at is as "back-tracking" or "scrapping the LRT plan" and no one at City Hall seems to keen on that.  I live in the east-end and use VIA rail on occasion.  So, this isn't a view from someone living in the downtown core, who wants what is best for themselves.

What about the bus routes feeding into the light-rail line?  A story from the Ottawa Citizen says that buses from neighbourhoods in the east will terminate at Rideau Centre on Rideau Street, while buses from areas in the west will end at the mall on Mackenzie King Bridge.  Here is the reason for it:

Keeping bus riders walking through the mall is one of the city’s objectives: “My understanding is there’s discussions with the Rideau Centre, and discussions on maintaining through-flow of people on foot through there,” [Councillor] Fleury said.

The City's goal should be to make transferring easy and quick for passengers, not help business for Rideau Centre.  Rideau Centre has an LRT station and doesn't require assistance in directing people into their mall.  As for transferring, passengers hate it and is one of the reasons why some don't use public transit at all.  If passengers get off a bus on Mackenzie King Bridge and have to walk through the length of the mall to transfer onto the underground LRT, then travel time will be lost, accessibility doesn't sound promising and it will be complicated for those not familiar with the mall.  Also, does this proposed route configuration imply that time-based proof-of-payment transfers will continue to exist?  Otherwise, Rideau Centre will have to be declared as a paid-fare zone, which is completely out of the question.  As well, with frequent fare increases, it's highly likely that the downtown area will be a fare-free zone.

What are your thoughts on the latest developments of this evolving project?

Transit issues on Talk Ottawa

On Thursday evening's Talk Ottawa program, public transit dominated much of a program that was about municipal issues in general. Along with myself (Peter Raaymakers), the panel included Peggy DuCharme, executive director of the Downtown Rideau Business Improvement Agency, and David Reevely, News Editor and blogger for the Ottawa Citizen talked about a variety of issues in our city today.

The roundtable kicked things off with a discussion of several issues facing the city's current light-rail transit plan, and especially the downtown tunnel. As is usually the case, cost came up, and the possibility (or probability) of cost increases as we move forward with the plan. The general consensus of the panel was that costs will likely go up, at the very least due to inflation, but that's a fairly normal occurence when projects of this magnitude are undertaken. Reevely suggested that there are options available if cost estimates rise significantly, including shortening the tunnel or finding savings in platform designs, but it would take a drastic increase in cost (a jump to, say, $3.5B or more) for the city to entertain the possibility of scrapping the project entirely. A fair degree of political humiliation would result from a cancellation, Reevely said, and DuCharme pointed out that a second major transit project cancellation in just ten years would seriously tarnish the city's reputation.

Sticking with the LRT project, we also discussed the impacts that will be felt leading up to and during the construction of the tunnel downtown. There was agreement that the impacts would not be insignificant--there will definitely be major disruptions to bus routes for at least a couple years during construction, and likely some street closures during the tunneling process--but, as Reevely and DuCharme both said, the hope is that the long-term benefits will outweigh the short-term inconveniences.

In the more immediate term, we also looked at potential service changes to the O-Train. Given the success of the pilot project-cum-transit spine, the city is seriously looking at increasing the capacity of the O-Train, which was generally regarded as a good idea. As was the possibility of extending the train along mostly-existing train tracks into the growing development of Riverside South, for which the Transit Commission approved a feasibility study.

That latter option, if pursued, would eventually lead to a revamped O-Train meeting the city's major east-west light-rail system at Bayview Station, which would transform that station into one of the city's biggest transfer points for riders. Bayview also happens to be a prime location for transit-oriented development, so the discussion moved on to the possibility of retail, residential, commercial, and other development (including a sports stadium) in or around the station. Members of the panel were fairly excited about the possibility, but all seemed to realize it would still have a long road to travel before coming to fruition.

On the topic of sports stadiums, the city's recent decision to study a potential Coventry Road footbridge across the Queensway connecting the Transitway with Ottawa Baseball Stadium and the developments surrounding it also came up. It's a $1M study into a $9M bridge which spans an area of the highway that will soon be expanded, and the panel seemed to think the City was well on its way to going forward with the bridge--Reevely pointed out that in a city that routinely builds road bridges for tens of millions of dollars, $9M for a pedestrian footbridge isn't an outrageous expense. To the criticism that there's no long-term certainty of the baseball stadium, panellists pointed out that there isn't only a baseball stadium there: There are also many houses, businesses, and the Hampton Inn and convention centre that would benefit from a more direct connection to the city's major transit spine, plus the fact that if the city decides to tear down the stadium, something else will certainly be built in its place. Plus, given that transportation was likely a major factor in the Lynx' struggles at attracting spectators, improving the accessibility of the stadium by putting it along the Transitway and opening it up to more people could go a long way in making it a more viable home stadium for a professional baseball team.

Also discussed were the outdoor water ban in the south end and street name changes, but those didn't have too much to do with transit so I won't go in to too much detail.