O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[Multi-modal]

Agree with most of your points, but disagree that the current contract should be cancelled. I think it should be approved, but with several modifications to the contract shortly following approval (even if this means 50-100 M in additional funding). This is particularly justifiable because consultation on the Limebank extension has been inadequate.

A long time ago I expressed that the City will be surprised by the ridership this half-baked Trillium Line will garner as developments in Riverside South continue and no meaningful N-S road upgrades are possible... resulting in political pressure for forced upgrades earlier than expected. This is still my opinion / prediction.

Is this the ideal way to move forward with the line's development? No.... but I do think it will be faster than cancelling / delaying it and hopeing City management will "see the light" and invest in the line properly.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good DAy.

Basically agreed. The pilot project was in spite of the bus lobby, and proved them well wrong. Well Done. But the 2006 plan was in effect a full relacement of the pilot project - as it well should have been, and well should be. Notwithstanding the actual or perceived flaw (the surface downtown), it was a fully viable plan.

And lets be honest, that plan wasn't perfect, as surface rail downtown would have been a mistake. But at least it made sense in that it extended the Trillium Line downtown and had a "shutdown and upgrade once" approach to the existing line.

What I find most frustrating is that the city has spent a lot of money to build the downtown tunnel which, with the automated systems in place, can handle a lot of capacity, and is not taking advantage of it. In theory it could handle up to 35-40 trains per hour. Even if the Barrhaven and Kanata branches has service every 5 minutes (giving Lincoln Fields to Orleans service every 2.5 minutes), the tunnel still has capacity for another 12-16 trains. If you did 10 minute frequencies to Riverside, and 15 minute frequencies to the airport, the Trillium Line would have 10 trains/hour on the shared sections north of Leitrim. And if extended through downtown, that would put 34 trains an hour through the downtown tunnel assuming all lines west of Pimisi fed into it.

Yes, this would mean that in 10 years time the tunnel would be very well used. But if it is built, why not utilize it? The existing Trillium Line and additional right of ways are right there. The tunnel is right there. A lot of developable urban lands around T-Line stations are right there. Take the time to do this line right.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And lets be honest, that plan wasn't perfect, as surface rail downtown would have been a mistake. But at least it made sense in that it extended the Trillium Line downtown and had a "shutdown and upgrade once" approach to the existing line.

What I find most frustrating is that the city has spent a lot of money to build the downtown tunnel which, with the automated systems in place, can handle a lot of capacity, and is not taking advantage of it. In theory it could handle up to 35-40 trains per hour. Even if the Barrhaven and Kanata branches has service every 5 minutes (giving Lincoln Fields to Orleans service every 2.5 minutes), the tunnel still has capacity for another 12-16 trains. If you did 10 minute frequencies to Riverside, and 15 minute frequencies to the airport, the Trillium Line would have 10 trains/hour on the shared sections north of Leitrim. And if extended through downtown, that would put 34 trains an hour through the downtown tunnel assuming all lines west of Pimisi fed into it.

Yes, this would mean that in 10 years time the tunnel would be very well used. But if it is built, why not utilize it? The existing Trillium Line and additional right of ways are right there. The tunnel is right there. A lot of developable urban lands around T-Line stations are right there. Take the time to do this line right.

At 2 minute frequency through the tunnel, you could have 5 branches through the tunnel at 10 minute frequency. 10 minute frequency is perfectly adequate for suburban service. Some say you can get the train frequency down to 90 seconds with automated control. That gives even more capacity for perhaps a 6th branch.

To me that is a lot a capacity for a long time and would cover Kanata, Barrhaven, Riverside South, Airport and two routes to Gatineau (east and west).

But we are not forward thinking like Stockholm which interlines like crazy. We have to control transfers. Too many transfer leads to poor ridership.

[lrt's friend]

The problem with the city's Trillium Line is that it does not serve its primary market, the inner suburbs. Furthermore, there is a dead end in their upgrade path. They have no idea what to do beyond 2048. Maybe another enormous shutdown. Even at 2038, we are talking about replacing the Walkley underpass. What kind of shutdown are we talking about then? There are also a lot of presumptions about ridership, which depends on how the south develops over a long period, and they throw in talk of Gatineau extension that doesn't seem remotely feasible.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Agree with most of your points, but disagree that the current contract should be cancelled. I think it should be approved, but with several modifications to the contract shortly following approval (even if this means 50-100 M in additional funding). This is particularly justifiable because consultation on the Limebank extension has been inadequate.

A long time ago I expressed that the City will be surprised by the ridership this half-baked Trillium Line will garner as developments in Riverside South continue and no meaningful N-S road upgrades are possible... resulting in political pressure for forced upgrades earlier than expected. This is still my opinion / prediction.

Is this the ideal way to move forward with the line's development? No.... but I do think it will be faster than cancelling / delaying it and hopeing City management will "see the light" and invest in the line properly.

I totally get what you are saying. I had much the same opinion as you in regards to a semi-upgraded line being so popular that it pushes them to fully upgrade it. And while I still think that is possible, I don't think it is enough to salvage the mess that the line has become.

And the problem with proceeding with the plan is that, as others have said, it effectively locks in the lines future. Once they upgrade station platforms, at the current height, and leave it unelectrified, it shuts out the possibility of interlining (which is just logical given the tunnel exists now) based on the lines design, and because they will have purchased even more DMUs, which will not be compatible on the C-Line, and would thus mean a large expense to replace them outright.

I know it wouldn't be popular, but, if the city wanted to quickly retool the plan and reissue an RFP that could be shovel ready in a year, or less, they should focus on doing whatever work is needed to prep the corridor for double tracking, and whatever work will result in a shutdown. And it might be that the end result of that phase is that the line remains much the way it is today. But at least then none of the work would be wasted when it moved forward with a large scale modernization and extension of the line. And it gives the city a bit more time to sort out some of the long term details.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

At one point it wasn't just a second class transit project. After the pilot project launched, and plans for LRT expansion began, an upgraded Trillium Line, along with a then surface line downtown, was going to be the first project out the door. Then the satellite suburbs became vocal about wanting the first LRT projects to be about replacing the Transitway. Since then, the city has tried hard to find ways of still getting the Trillium Line done, but this has just resulted in a compromised project. I know people really want to see something, anything, done with this line (myself included), but at this point I fully support cancelling the Trillium Line plans as they are, and having an RFP reissued where upgrades ultimately lead to a line equal to that of the Confederation Line. Anything less than that would be a huge mistake that will take decades, and a lot of money, to correct.

I have spoken repeatedly for years that a Phase 2 of the Trillium Line without proper double tracking locks us into second class service for a very long time, if not permanently. The line from the city is capacity, nothing more. It doesn't really matter whether 12 minute frequency is adequate for trunk line service.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At 2 minute frequency through the tunnel, you could have 5 branches through the tunnel at 10 minute frequency. 10 minute frequency is perfectly adequate for suburban service. Some say you can get the train frequency down to 90 seconds with automated control. That gives even more capacity for perhaps a 6th branch.

To me that is a lot a capacity for a long time and would cover Kanata, Barrhaven, Riverside South, Airport and two routes to Gatineau (east and west).

But we are not forward thinking like Stockholm which interlines like crazy. We have to control transfers. Too many transfer leads to poor ridership.

Exactly. The tunnel changes the game. Not taking advantage of it and connecting the T-Line into it (even if that link doesn't happen right away), is a huge mistake.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I totally get what you are saying. I had much the same opinion as you in regards to a semi-upgraded line being so popular that it pushes them to fully upgrade it. And while I still think that is possible, I don't think it is enough to salvage the mess that the line has become.

And the problem with proceeding with the plan is that, as others have said, it effectively locks in the lines future. Once they upgrade station platforms, at the current height, and leave it unelectrified, it shuts out the possibility of interlining (which is just logical given the tunnel exists now) based on the lines design, and because they will have purchased even more DMUs, which will not be compatible on the C-Line, and would thus mean a large expense to replace them outright.

I know it wouldn't be popular, but, if the city wanted to quickly retool the plan and reissue an RFP that could be shovel ready in a year, or less, they should focus on doing whatever work is needed to prep the corridor for double tracking, and whatever work will result in a shutdown. And it might be that the end result of that phase is that the line remains much the way it is today. But at least then none of the work would be wasted when it moved forward with a large scale modernization and extension of the line. And it gives the city a bit more time to sort out some of the long term details.

The city has put itself into a bind since the 2006 cancellation. They have committed to serve an east-west route first (instead of improving the original plan as promised on cancellation) that is such an enormous project. Each extension leads to more demands for further extensions. The extension to Trim Road means we need to do likewise to Stittsville. The city does not have the financial wherewithal to do this and build a south route adequately, so they compromise the south route.

What was first in 2006 is now last. That was a quote from Thursday.

Yet, at the same time, they have been delaying road projects with the carrot of rail service. Again, the bind. We can't build roads until rail is in place. All the time, the south end of the city becomes a bigger mess regarding transportation every day.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem with the city's Trillium Line is that it does not serve its primary market, the inner suburbs. Furthermore, there is a dead end in their upgrade path. They have no idea what to do beyond 2048. Maybe another enormous shutdown. Even at 2038, we are talking about replacing the Walkley underpass. What kind of shutdown are we talking about then? There are also a lot of presumptions about ridership, which depends on how the south develops over a long period, and they throw in talk of Gatineau extension that doesn't seem remotely feasible.

And that's part of what makes the whole thing so frustrating. In 2006, they had a decent vision for the line. They totally lost sight of it in the past decade and now its utterly dreadful.

There is still a chance for them to hit the brakes and recover relatively fast. It isn't as thought they have to start from scratch. All the pieces are there, they just need to put them together differently. (And for the record, I think the way you reorganize the pieces is to focus on double tracking and electrifying Bayview to South Keys for phase 1, and then interlining with the C-Line and the extensions to the airport and Riverside for phase 2, which could even be broken up into 3 or 4 different phases if they wanted to take a more staged approach).

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The city has put itself into a bind since the 2006 cancellation. They have committed to serve an east-west route first (instead of improving the original plan as promised on cancellation) that is such an enormous project. Each extension leads to more demands for further extensions. The extension to Trim Road means we need to do likewise to Stittsville. The city does not have the financial wherewithal to do this and build a south route adequately, so they compromise the south route.

What was first in 2006 is now last. That was a quote from Thursday.

Yet, at the same time, they have been delaying road projects with the carrot of rail service. Again, the bind. We can't build roads until rail is in place. All the time, the south end of the city becomes a bigger mess regarding transportation every day.

And at some point the city will have to tell the satellite suburbs to take a break and wait their turn. A neighborhood like Stittsville can leverage the pressure all of Kanata is putting on the city right now. As sections of those suburbs start to get service, the overall demands being expressed start to decrease, which makes it easier for the city to say "it is time for the south end to have a turn".

Yes, the south end needs better transit. It also deserves transit that is equal to what other parts of the city are getting. Hence why pushing forward and dealing with consequences later is a terrible approach.

The T-Line is in a tough spot right now. And part of the problem has arisen because it was always portrayed as a line that would be "easy" to deal with because it was already a rail line. I think the reality that this wont be a cheap, or simple, project needs to be accepted, and a reset and reissuing of the RFP would go a long way to help change that perception (as would a more comprehensive plan to encourage development along the line).

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I know it wouldn't be popular, but, if the city wanted to quickly retool the plan and reissue an RFP that could be shovel ready in a year, or less, they should focus on doing whatever work is needed to prep the corridor for double tracking, and whatever work will result in a shutdown.

My fear is that the City is so entrenched in their current thinking regarding the Trillium Line, that a change in plan similar to what you have proposed will take much longer than a year to come about (if it ever does).

My other fear is that higher levels of government will become much more hesitant to commit money towards the Trillium Line if we cancel a large contract on this corridor for the second time in just over a decade.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

My fear is that the City is so entrenched in their current thinking regarding the Trillium Line, that a change in plan similar to what you have proposed will take much longer than a year to come about (if it ever does).

My other fear is that higher levels of government will become much more hesitant to commit money towards the Trillium Line if we cancel a large contract on this corridor for the second time in just over a decade.

People had the same fear when Larry O'Brien cancelled the original LRT plan too. It is always going to be hard to cancel something for an unknown, rather than just stick with what is already planned (even if it isn't great).

I don't see any reason why it needs to be help up indefinitely. When the city wants to do something, it can. It just takes the right commitment and focus.

Whether that exists when it comes to the T-Line is a fair question though.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

My fear is that the City is so entrenched in their current thinking regarding the Trillium Line, that a change in plan similar to what you have proposed will take much longer than a year to come about (if it ever does).

My other fear is that higher levels of government will become much more hesitant to commit money towards the Trillium Line if we cancel a large contract on this corridor for the second time in just over a decade.

I still remember the promise that the shovel will be in the ground within 12 months of the 2006 cancellation. It didn't turn out that way, did it? What was supposed to a time to re-think and improve the 2006 plan turned out to be a total rip up of the TMP.

I am also concerned that a change now, would have similar results. It wouldn't be a 12 month delay, but a 12 year delay. The city has reached the point that it can barely afford Phase 2 of the Confederation Line. There is no money for a better Trillium Line, no matter how bad I think the plan is.

We just have to realize that the T-Line is going to hit a dead end.

The sad thing is that the best deal for rail transit was in 2006 when the exchange rate was better and the cost of labour, equipment and commodities were much lower even considering inflation.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

People had the same fear when Larry O'Brien cancelled the original LRT plan too. It is always going to be hard to cancel something for an unknown, rather than just stick with what is already planned (even if it isn't great).

I don't see any reason why it needs to be help up indefinitely. When the city wants to do something, it can. It just takes the right commitment and focus.

Whether that exists when it comes to the T-Line is a fair question though.

There is no political will to improve the T-Line. The city is run by the west and east suburban councilors. The political landscape has not changed a lot since 2006.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is no political will to improve the T-Line. The city is run by the west and east suburban councilors. The political landscape has not changed a lot since 2006.

That is very true. And that is why a change in approach might not be a bad thing for the T-Line.

One thing I have always thought, and still do think, is that the value of the T-Line isn't necessarily in what it serves now, it is in what it can do for the city. And that makes it a harder sell. But a little bit of vision and good communication could go a long way.

I am not saying hitting reset on the T-Line would be an easy choice. And explaining why takes a lot more than just a few paragraphs to explain. But I do think it could be retooled, and in a way that not a lot of time would be lost getting modernization underway.

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is no political will to improve the T-Line. The city is run by the west and east suburban councilors. The political landscape has not changed a lot since 2006.

Since when was there a political will for anything in this land of nothing? The transport (and anything else) policy as far as I see it is to do nothing and leave it for the next admin.

[OTSkyline]

If the Walkley Road overpass was pinpointed as the issue, why not address it? They will be right there doing construction and adding a station next year anyway, why not take the time to double track it? Urgh... frustrating

As my parents always used to say "if you're going to do something, do it right the first time".

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

If the Walkley Road overpass was pinpointed as the issue, why not address it? They will be right there doing construction and adding a station next year anyway, why not take the time to double track it? Urgh... frustrating

As my parents always used to say "if you're going to do something, do it right the first time".

They don't even get it right the second time!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

They don't even get it right the second time!

I think we are up to the fourth time now. They didn't do it for the trial in 2001. They didn't do it right when they installed the welded rail. They didn't do it right when they installed the extra sidings. Now they aren't doing right when they are building Walkley Station.

[JohnnyRenton]

One question that I think would be very useful to know the answer too is exactly what aspects of the T-Line upgrade require it to be shutdown?

For example, could a station be demolished, and then rebuilt, while the line is still running? Would installing catenary require the line be shut down? Could the Elwood diamond grade separation be done while the line is still operating?

I think a lot of people assumed that upgrading the T-Line would be a simpler and easier process than it was (myself included). But once you really dig into the details of it, it is just as complex a job as the C-Line.

Maybe a good approach for the city is to create a phase 2 plan where the focus is solely on the unsexy, but critical projects that would prepare the corridor to be double tracked and modernized. The end result might mean that there isn't much additional service after the first round of upgrades, but if all the shutdowns are completed at once, then the city can focus on more incremental, logical upgrades knowing the line can carry on with business as usual.