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

[FutureWickedCity]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

Sorry for the rambling rant, but my point is that public transit from the airport really is shockingly bad, and must be even worse for tourists who aren't familiar with our system.

People unfamiliar with the system would probably look for signage, which would take them to the train, and also inform themselves that they have to transfer lines at Greenboro. I don't see how your errors make the system bad. What we have would be the envy of many cities. Calgary, Halifax, Melbourne and LA spring to mind.

[golfguy9]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

People unfamiliar with the system would probably look for signage, which would take them to the train, and also inform themselves that they have to transfer lines at Greenboro. I don't see how your errors make the system bad. What we have would be the envy of many cities. Calgary, Halifax, Melbourne and LA spring to mind.

An airport train link = good.
One that takes 2-3x the time to get DT vs driving... not good.

[harls]

I really want to try to take transit to the airport from my place in Gatineau to try out that new train, but garsh darnit.. if I was alone, and had all the time in the world, maybe. I'm going to park my car there.

I am sorry.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

People unfamiliar with the system would probably look for signage, which would take them to the train, and also inform themselves that they have to transfer lines at Greenboro. I don't see how your errors make the system bad. What we have would be the envy of many cities. Calgary, Halifax, Melbourne and LA spring to mind.

Hmmm

I took the bus from Calgary airport to downtown. No transfer, about 30 minutes. It seemed better than what we have to offer.

I took an express bus from LAX to downtown LA. It worked for me and wasn't that expensive and got me to Union Station, LA's rail hub.

I also took the train from downtown Oslo to the airport in about 30 minutes. It was great.

Why spend millions and millions and not do it right? And now we have made it worse by reducing frequency in some hours.

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

People unfamiliar with the system would probably look for signage, which would take them to the train, and also inform themselves that they have to transfer lines at Greenboro. I don't see how your errors make the system bad. What we have would be the envy of many cities. Calgary, Halifax, Melbourne and LA spring to mind.

I was looking for signage. It either didn't exist or led me on a goose chase.

Also, if you reread what I wrote, you'll find that the airport train doesn't even take you as far as Greenboro. Maybe people who are unlucky and get there with 24 minutes before the next train comes will find a little placard showing the line terminating at South Keys, but otherwise they won't know.

[Jihn M]

Perhaps naive questions on my part, but is there any reliable information available as to (1) the maximum frequency that could be effected on LET Line 2 using g the current type of diesel trains while adding a limited number of extra twin track sections, and (2) whether it would be possible to run current Line 4 type trains on Line 2 to Bayview thereby adding some lower capacity Line 2 trains that could go directly to the Airport from downtown?

[lrt's friend]

I had to laugh when reading a recent letter to editor, suggesting that some or all Line 2 trains be directed to the airport. Why? The Line 2-Line 4 combo is too slow with wait times at South Keys being longer than train travel time to the airport. But what did we build? Something with no flexibility. Running half length trains required for the airport spur from Bayview to the Airport creates a capacity crisis. This is what Jim 'tim bits' Watson and his council agreed to. We knew we were building something of limited value but the plan was cast in stone before any public consultation.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Jihn M

Perhaps naive questions on my part, but is there any reliable information available as to (1) the maximum frequency that could be effected on LET Line 2 using g the current type of diesel trains while adding a limited number of extra twin track sections, and (2) whether it would be possible to run current Line 4 type trains on Line 2 to Bayview thereby adding some lower capacity Line 2 trains that could go directly to the Airport from downtown?

Welcome to the forum!

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Jihn M

Perhaps naive questions on my part, but is there any reliable information available as to (1) the maximum frequency that could be effected on LET Line 2 using g the current type of diesel trains while adding a limited number of extra twin track sections, and (2) whether it would be possible to run current Line 4 type trains on Line 2 to Bayview thereby adding some lower capacity Line 2 trains that could go directly to the Airport from downtown?

My understanding is that Line 2 is pretty much maxed out, with regards to frequency. (That’s why they doubled the train length to increase its capacity, instead of simply adding more trains.) There is no room to let a Line 4 vehicle continue north to Bayview – and keep the current Line 2 runs. The only way to have a Line 4 vehicle go to Bayview would be to replace a Line 2 run with it. (i.e., They could skip one Line 2 run by holding a train at Bayview or Limebank for an extra 1h20, and allowing a Line 4 vehicle to take its slot between South Keye->Bayview->South Keys.) That leaves a 24 minute ‘hole’ in the schedule south od South Keys Station.

As for extra passing sidings, that is debatable. There is talk of widening the underpass of Walkley (to twin the tracks); widening ‘The Cut’ to bring twin tracks down to just north of Carling Station; and adding the second overpass over the VIA Rail track to twin the tracks from Brookfield to just south of Mooney’s Bay Station. But these are all costly additions for minimal gain, because there are sections – like the tunnel under the Rideau Canal – that would still be bottle-necks. The low-hanging fruit has all been picked.

All that said, OC Transpo does run coupled Alstom Coradia LINT vehicles as Line 2 trains. IF coupling and uncoupling was fast and automated, it might be possible for OC Transpo to schedule one Line 2 train of LINT vehicles to uncouple at South Keys so that one vehicle can go to the airport and the other continue to Riverside South. Heading north, they would re-couple at South Keys. However, that would add a huge amount of complexity, logistically, for vehicle movement and for passengers to ensure that they are in the correct half of a southbound vehicle. (I don’t even think that a completely distinctive pain-job for the vehicle that is going to the airport would be enough to guide customers to the right vehicle.)

[Jihn M]

Thanks for insightful comments on my earlier questions. A few follow up thoughts.
I take the point that Jim Watson and his Council of the time deserve much of the blame for the value-engineering that resulted in the current woeful inadequacies of Lines 2 and 4, especially the absence of twin tracking, the illogical termination at Limebank short of most of the South Urban Community, and the high floor design prohibiting Line 1 connectivity and running trains plausibly along the surface on Albert and Slater Street. That said, there are others who may have contributed even more to the situation, namely, Larry O'Brien and his political allies for short-sightedly cancelling the approved, happily priced original project in 2006, and the Province of Ontario for continuing to withhold the kind of funding support routinely offered Toronto and environs for mass transit projects. I will leave off comment on Doug Ford's current goofy 401 tunnel idea.
Whatever the poor past decision making, and sunk costs to date, we are left with the question of whether Lines 2 and 4 could ever be sufficiently "fixed" through incremental changes that would avoid a complete shut-down for two or three years with all its associated inconvenience, extra traffic jams, and risks of permanent loss of ridership. I note that the City of Ottawa's most recent long-term Transportation Plan does not seem to contemplate a "complete re-build" as even a future option, let alone a commitment ... reasons of both cost and embarrassment over past decisions figure in this.
Perhaps a threshold test for long term "fixability" would be whether the current Lines 2 and 4 could ever, through incremental modifications (twin tracking where possible, extension from Limebank to Strandherd), be elevated to 6 minute frequency on both lines. I know there is understandable skepticism whether that threshold could ever be met within sane technical feasibility and financial parameters, but it sure would be nice to have focused studies available, even if they are only ballpark. At the moment, long term City planning seems to be that the South Urban Community could best be served some day by an extension of Line 1 south. Such an extension is probably a good idea in itself. However, given the Strandherd station would only serve one corner of the projected built up area straddling the Rideau River, surely the utility/cost of Line 1 extension should be weighed/referenced against what might or might not be involved in creating six minute frequency across the South Urban Community through a Line 2 that works properly. Ideally, someday Strandherd station would be served both by a Line 1 extension and a Line 2 extension.
I would be happy to hear thoughts from contributors more knowledgeable than I am.

[J.OT13]

At Transit Committee the other day, they mentioned it might be possible to increase frequency to 11 minutes. My take on this is that the "improvement" would be far too negligible to be worth it.

To add to Richard's points, Line 4 trains are half length, so splitting the northern end of Line 2 between the two means losing 1/4 of the capacity and introducing new confusion (will it be a full or half train?)

Doubling Walkley is what's needed to bring frequency up to 8 minutes, probably more realistically 10 minutes. Problem with that is the City stupidly rehabilitated the Walkley overpass not that long ago for about $10 million when they could have rebuilt and doubled tracked for $20 million. Double tracking now would probably $50 million with transit inflation.

It might be possible to double track everything except the Dow's Lake Tunnel and the Rideau River bridge for at best a 6 minute frequency.

The other consideration is Bayview. There will be a point where transfers from Line 2 to Bayview will be too much for the Confederation Line to handle. Right now it can be 400 people every 12 minutes on trains that are already full. Not so bad as people can wait an extra 5 minutes for the next train, but when the two lines have the same frequency, that transfer no longer works. Eventually (in 20, 30 years) you need to extend Line 2 Downtown, or build a Bank subway line that takes the Riverside and/or Airport lines from Trillium.

For now the biggest priority should be doubling Dow's Lake station as it will soon be a safety hazard once it gets the high volumes of passengers from the new Civic Hospital. it would be possible to do so by the time it opens, but there's no indication the City or Province are ready to make that happen, though we have a better idea what the expanded station will look like with the hospital link approved. That expansion will do nothing for overall frequency.