Trillium Line Upgrades & Extension (Stage 2) [Greenboro to Airport/Limebank] | U/C
I just noticed that there are threads for the:
But no thread for the Stage 2 - Trillium Line South LRT Extension (much of the discussion has been done in the thread for the Existing Trillium Line). This thread is for posting news, information and opinions about this stage 2 southern extension. News, information and opinions about the existing line, currently in operation should continue to be made in the Trillium Line (O-Train) Updates thread. The official web page for this extension is http://www.stage2lrt.ca/where/south/. |
Quote:
I guess I'll begin... anybody notice in geoOttawa that the Trillium line shows 2 tracks for stage 2 at Bayview station, and what looks like a walkaround buffer at the end? I assume if this is the case, this will be roughed in in the existing Stage 1 station as it's being built. |
Good Day.... and welcome to Jim Watson's LRT Transit Guesswork Bingo !
anotherwords.....only Lord Jim knows. We -hope- that this is protection for the eventual conversion/electrification/double-tracking of the entire Trillium Line, but as we have absolutely no detailed plans or projections of Bayview station, your guess is as good as anybody else's. And, as you have noted, it involves a walkaround to reach the platform at the other side (!!??!!***) which precludes any extension to Gatineau ? We don't know. We can't guess. We are left twisting in the planning breezes. EnJoy ! |
Good Day...
The iLint trains could potentially be used on the Trillium Line prior to full conversion; I think Kitchissippi is thinking of only T-Line stage 2 wherein the only factor Roger1818 has raised would be the Dow's lake tunnel. Other than that, given that the T-Line TPAP has anticipated that we need at least 12 more trains (7.1.5 , pg.74), and the potential PR bonus for Jimmy in 'going green' , then who knows - maybe it is a possible option. FYI - the TPAP states that the existing 6 Lint 41 trains are no longer built - the new trains incorporate better crash management systems and federal TC approval would be needed to run a mixed fleet. So if we use the existing 6 as the shuttle service trains (per TPAP, not me) then we need to buy at least 12-14 new anyway (per TPAP, not me), running in at least semi-isolated service from each other, which might garner easier TC approvals (so call me ever-hopeful). EnJoy. Cross -posted. |
Good Day...
for what it is worth, a preliminary specification is up on a third-party website. It is subscription-only, and blurred until you sign-in, but the fact of it is there to see. https://ijglobal.com/data/transactio...on-phase-2-ppp Interesting, if nothing else. EnJoy! |
Does anyone know why they don't want to double track and electrify the Trillium line under Stage 2?
Seems to me they could benefit from vehicle commonality and boost frequencies with double tracking. |
Good Day to you, and welcome !
It basically boils down to 3 different factors, and how they are balanced by those who must be obeyed : The cost .vs. passenger traffic. The cost has risen enormously since the old 2004-6 Chiarelli plan (which had one of two different basic flaws (not going downtown .vs. getting ties up in downtown (surface) .vs. downtown tunnelling, depending on your point of view), and the passenger load forecast (problematic to analyse) is just too low in the short term (future demand would have been there, but that was to have been in the future ! ) . Conflicting priorities .vs. cost - how much to invest (fiscal capital and political capital) in the line before political blowback from 'neglected' destinations elsewhere in the city outskirts. Nickel-and-diming the product - a matter of -- oh, we can achieve that (frequency/load) without spending that much (full doubling) -- resulting in a fudging of the cost factors and the load factors to tell us that the same result of capacity and frequency can be achieved with a lesser investment - resulting in the current disaster of service. And as for commonality of equipment - yup, a reasonable assumption until the economics kick in - in that the cost savings on the common equipment alone are simply insufficient to justify the rest of the necessary investment. Plus, though you may not be aware, the previous history of the line - in that it was created in the first place as a pilot project ( a highly successful one) in the face of utter and outright opposition (war) by BRT and bus-first-and-only lobby proponents who won the first war (the transitway) by use of mis-representation and mis-statement of what the Tway would consist of, cost, and how it would operate. That's a capsule of the discussion. And -oh, my, have I ever stirred up a hornet's nest now. All this has been debated in the past in several of these threads of this forum; and I recommend you browse the backlist. EnJoy! |
The 2008 Transportation Master Plan identified the trillium line conversion to LRT as a phase 3 project. The 2013 TMP replaced that with continuing to use DMUs as a mostly single track and put the emphasis on Orleans.
I tend to think most of the reasoning is political - Orleans is a swing riding while Ottawa South and Nepean Carleton are not. Also, I don't think there is consensus on its long term future - should it be a branch of the confederation line, permantly a DMU, or the trunk of a regional rail system (currently being proposed) and that lack of consensus discourages big investments. |
It's kinda crazy that they don't have sufficient demand for double tracking and electrification with the airport anchoring the line.
Has anyone seen what the max frequencies will be single tracking? Is it actually worthwhile to take this thing to the airport if you're coming from East and West? |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm happy they came to their senses. More broadly, I agree with some of the complaints here about taking LRT outside of the greenbelt. And what's strange here is how unbalanced the plan is. They go to Moodie in the West (and that's justifiable with the new DND campus at Nortel). But all the way to Trim in the East? Why? At least going to the airport in the South makes sense. Anyway, as somebody due to move back in a year and a half, it's just super-exciting to see major Ottawa transit development. I am impressed to see Ottawa actually embracing urbanism at such a rapid pace. |
Quote:
I think the max frequency is about what it runs at now (which is below estimates for max frequency). I can't see the airport being a big driver of ridership. The two transfers will scare a lot of people away, as will the relative speed compared to a taxi. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What I was inquiring about though, is the East/West difference. Orleans is getting far better coverage in Stage 2 than Kanata and Stittsville get. I am curious as to why this difference is there. |
Quote:
|
I am in Oslo right now. I can tell you that we are doing everything wrong. From a refusal to consider interlining to not having direct service to the airport and even the hub and spoke model. All. Wrong. If you want a vibrant city centre, it has to. be the centre of your transportation network. Otherwise, we will continue to weaken our downtown as we have for the last 60 years. We are reinforcing the need for inconvenient transfers that drive the majority to do all their business in the suburbs. Even our hotels are increasingly setting up shop near the airport. We need to send our councillors to Europe to see how to properly set up a transportation network instead of following a second rate American model.
|
Quote:
|
I also think the fight against sprawl is wrong headed. We are trying to force everybody to live the same lifestyle. That will never work. At the same time we are depopulating the countryside. Would it be so bad if 40,000 lived in Smiths Falls? At least regional rail then becomes possible
|
Quote:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=ceps20 |
What I am also seeing is timidity. We hesitate for fear of failure when we are really limiting possible success. So we build the Trillium Line to a second rate standard because it won't get 250,000 riders a day. Since when is that the minimum standard for success. We also limit our vision on a frequent transit network. Instead we think it is more cost efficient to make them transfer. Maybe so, but are we limiting our longterm success.
|
Quote:
"Oh, European cities are so beautiful and quaint and charming! We should be more like them!" "You mean, narrower streets, lots more rail-based transit, mixed uses, buildings that come tight to the street without pointless setbacks, patios, outdoor booze, that sort of thing, the sort of thing you and your taxpayer's federations and community associations fight against whenever they are proposed in Ottawa?" "Yes, those things!" |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.