Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Aylmer]

With trains passing every 2-3 minutes at Bayview towards downtown just one staircase away from the OTrain, I really don't know how much of an issue the transfer thing really is. I mean, one transfer is entirely doable when the average wait is barely a minute and it's in a heated and well-lit station.

Even for the airport.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Only Ottawa will build a train to the airport that doesn't run downtown. And we will wonder why ridership will continue to be poor in the south end.

The plan for LRT construction should be about maximizing the coverage of the overall network and hence maximizing ridership. Routing all trains onto a single line downtown does not do this. It is a fact of life that we have transfers in every transport system except for automobiles. A quick transfer at Bayview does not seem to me to be a major impediment to airport bound passengers to get downtown. The city claims that there is enough ridership on the O-train extension to support an 8 minute frequency but not enough from the airport to support having a 16 minute frequency on the airport route. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

[Kitchissippi]

I still cringe when I watch this video and thank the stars it never happened. Buses and cars weaving in and out of the rail right of way, and the bus stops were a block away from the "streetcar" stops to in an attempt to ignore the bus jams.
• Video Link

I'm glad we're finally building a good foundation for an easily expandable system that addresses current issues instead of creating new problems.

[Aylmer]

God, I guess we dodged a bullet there. The DOTT is the biggest part of this project, IMO. Buses outside of Downtown already run pretty smoothly, but the intense jams are infuriating: often, it's faster to walk to Bay than to wait at Metcalfe. It always amazes me that it takes me 10-15 minutes to do the 1km from Lebreton to Laurier, sometimes double if the weather isn't perfect.

With the tunnel, it'll feel like light-speed ― I can't imagine it'd take longer than 3-4 minutes to cross downtown (operating speed of 15-20km/h). That's faster than driving at rush-hour!

As much as I advocate for surface LRT for its low cost and high adaptability, I really must concede that the tunnel downtown is going to be night and day compared to what it is now or what it would have been with the 2004 plan.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I still cringe when I watch this video and thank the stars it never happened. Buses and cars weaving in and out of the rail right of way, and the bus stops were a block away from the "streetcar" stops to in an attempt to ignore the bus jams.
• Video Link

I'm glad we're finally building a good foundation for an easily expandable system that addresses current issues instead of creating new problems.

HOLY CRAP that would have been horrific. Would have only made congestion worse, plus it would have been extremely vulnerable to an accident that could shut it down completely.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I still cringe when I watch this video and thank the stars it never happened. Buses and cars weaving in and out of the rail right of way, and the bus stops were a block away from the "streetcar" stops to in an attempt to ignore the bus jams.
• Video Link

I'm glad we're finally building a good foundation for an easily expandable system that addresses current issues instead of creating new problems.

Gosh, this was just a spoof, not an official plan, right?

[Aylmer]

Nope. That was the honest-to-God plan and official rendering.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Nope. That was the honest-to-God plan and official rendering.

That is just terrible! LRT, buses, cars, parking... Not to mention the video itself is terrible.
This is why I prefer transit to be underground, so we're not clogging our roads with too many functions (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, parking, buses, LRT). There's just not enough room.

[Beedok]

What was the thing at the start where the trains were switching lanes or whatever at Mackenzie King? Why would that ever be a good idea?

[Kitchissippi]

I think it was to compensate for the fact there isn't any room on the bridge for a centre platform with shelters, so both directions had to share the same side.

I'm still not sure what was supposed to happen with the vehicular traffic that currently uses the bridge, they just waved a magic wand and assumed that the other bridges will cover the demand. Even more incredulous were the odd cyclists thrown into the video (e.g. @ 1:28), who were also expected to merge on to the path of trains and conflict with all the stops!

I remember writing a few letters to councillors opposing this plan, and if that somehow added to the tide that ended up scrapping this stupidity, I'm glad I did it. This project would have swallowed up all the available transit funding and probably turned most of the city against light rail based on the messy result.

Only three things differentiated this project from the current O-Train line:
1) Electrification and double-tracking (the only good thing but with limited marginal utility)
2) The idiotic downtown extension which would have created more problems than solutions
3) The questionable extension through greenfields that only would have boosted the profits of developer landholders, essentially creating a single $700 million express route through a yet-to-be-built community, with no guarantee they would actually use the line beyond going to work and back.

Anyone who says "we could have had this line up and running by now" should look at the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge that was supposed to be an essential part of this railway. Um, has anyone driven over it yet?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I think it was to compensate for the fact there isn't any room on the bridge for a centre platform with shelters, so both directions had to share the same side.

I'm still not sure what was supposed to happen with the vehicular traffic that currently uses the bridge, they just waved a magic wand and assumed that the other bridges will cover the demand. Even more incredulous were the odd cyclists thrown into the video (e.g. @ 1:28), who were also expected to merge on to the path of trains and conflict with all the stops!

I remember writing a few letters to councillors opposing this plan, and if that somehow added to the tide that ended up scrapping this stupidity, I'm glad I did it. This project would have swallowed up all the available transit funding and probably turned most of the city against light rail based on the messy result.

Only three things differentiated this project from the current O-Train line:
1) Electrification and double-tracking (the only good thing but with limited marginal utility)
2) The idiotic downtown extension which would have created more problems than solutions
3) The questionable extension through greenfields that only would have boosted the profits of developer landholders, essentially creating a single $700 million express route through a yet-to-be-built community, with no guarantee they would actually use the line beyond going to work and back.

Anyone who says "we could have had this line up and running by now" should look at the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge that was supposed to be an essential part of this railway. Um, has anyone driven over it yet?

To be fair, the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge was part of the N/S rail contract. It was cancelled along with the line and had to go back through a bidding process that eventually saw a sketchy company win the new contract.

The best possible alternative would have been the proposal to build the N/S rail to Bayview IMO. That way the N/S would have been completed at the cheapest possible cost, the downtown would not have been the complete mess the original proposal envisioned and we would still have the possibility of a tunnel downtown for both N/S and E/W.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I think it was to compensate for the fact there isn't any room on the bridge for a centre platform with shelters, so both directions had to share the same side.

But there's already a waiting area on the other side of the bridge today. And they had tracks to that the trains could go straight in either direction.

[SF Thomas]

Agree the tunnel downtown is pretty much necessary in order for the LRT system to be effective. I've argued the point quite a bit whenever I meet anyone who preferred the old surface plan for cost reasons.

Aside from having the risk of cars still maneuvering in and out of the LRT right of way, especially because they wanted to preserve on street parking, the intersections and lights alone would have continued to be a huge drag on the system. Not to favour cars over public transit, but LRT trains running every 3 minutes would have played havoc with traffic which is already pretty bad downtown, especially at peak periods. It would have probably caused several accidents sooner or later. The LRT trains would have gotten stuck in traffic as well slowing down the whole system.

The best alternative loosely speaking for surface LRT would have been to use a single street, probably either Albert or Slater entirely for LRT and close it off to regular traffic. Possible exceptions made for delivery trucks for shops and businesses along the streets. I imagine that business owners would have gone ballistic though since it cuts down their exposure to on street traffic and makes it harder for cars to get to them. Still wouldn't have entirely fixed the traffic light problem either.

-------------------

Regardless of what happens after once the downtown tunnel is completed we will at least have the key starting point for LRT done.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

With trains passing every 2-3 minutes at Bayview towards downtown just one staircase away from the OTrain, I really don't know how much of an issue the transfer thing really is. I mean, one transfer is entirely doable when the average wait is barely a minute and it's in a heated and well-lit station.

Even for the airport.

Only a second class city would build a rail line to the airport and not offer direct service to downtown.

I remind everybody that there will only be trains every 2 to 3 minutes during peak periods.

I would never use a train system in a strange city that dumps you in a barren location like Bayview.

Regardless, my point was that the replacement proposal provides crappy service to the south end of the city, where almost every resident will have to transfer twice. OK I suppose for captive downtown workers, but for casual downtown visitors, why bother going downtown if you can avoid it?

I love all the above comments from people that won't have to put up with this crap since they don't live in the south end, if it ever gets built, and I am not holding my breath that it will.

Just like the Montreal Rd. and Carling LRT plans, there is a good chance the revised O-Train plan as well as Baseline BRT plans will land in the dumpster after the Confederation Line extensions take all the money. We can't even afford to build a platform at Walkley Road.

Anybody been out to Riverside South lately and seen the hundreds of new homes being built around the old LRT corridor? A lost opportunity to offer a transportation alternative in a new suburb. Then we complain that suburbs are so car oriented. Give me a break!

It is quite clear that there are not enough votes in the south end to demand our fair share of transportation improvements whether roads or transit so our needs will continue to be ignored. On the odd occasion that we get a scrap, it is usually a botched plan that ends up being delayed by years.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

Agree the tunnel downtown is pretty much necessary in order for the LRT system to be effective. I've argued the point quite a bit whenever I meet anyone who preferred the old surface plan for cost reasons.

Aside from having the risk of cars still maneuvering in and out of the LRT right of way, especially because they wanted to preserve on street parking, the intersections and lights alone would have continued to be a huge drag on the system. Not to favour cars over public transit, but LRT trains running every 3 minutes would have played havoc with traffic which is already pretty bad downtown, especially at peak periods. It would have probably caused several accidents sooner or later. The LRT trains would have gotten stuck in traffic as well slowing down the whole system.

The best alternative loosely speaking for surface LRT would have been to use a single street, probably either Albert or Slater entirely for LRT and close it off to regular traffic. Possible exceptions made for delivery trucks for shops and businesses along the streets. I imagine that business owners would have gone ballistic though since it cuts down their exposure to on street traffic and makes it harder for cars to get to them. Still wouldn't have entirely fixed the traffic light problem either.

-------------------

Regardless of what happens after once the downtown tunnel is completed we will at least have the key starting point for LRT done.

The surface rail line if it had opened in 2009 as planned would have been supplemented by a tunnel as phase 2. This would have been inevitable. The fact that the north-south line will not use the tunnel proves that a surface line would have been useful in the long-term. We will now have to provide overcapacity on the Confederation Line to handle the extra traffic between Bayview and Hurdman.

Also, the proposed O-Train plan is badly constrained by its single track design and any future service expansion will again result in significant service shutdowns. As the O-Train expands and serves more non-student riders, this will become increasingly problematic. We will no longer be working around school terms in the future. How will we be able realistically deal with service shutdowns?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

To be fair, the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge was part of the N/S rail contract. It was cancelled along with the line and had to go back through a bidding process that eventually saw a sketchy company win the new contract.

The best possible alternative would have been the proposal to build the N/S rail to Bayview IMO. That way the N/S would have been completed at the cheapest possible cost, the downtown would not have been the complete mess the original proposal envisioned and we would still have the possibility of a tunnel downtown for both N/S and E/W.

The futility of Ottawa's planning will become apparent when the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge finally opens with reserved bus lanes that will have an empty 94 bus every half hour. They will be empty because our transit planners have decided to turn the buses around right next to the bridge and therefore not serve Riverside South in any effective way.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would never use a train system in a strange city that dumps you in a barren location like Bayview.

All the more reason to de-barrenize Bayview.

Just like the Montreal Rd. and Carling LRT plans,

What plans?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

All the more reason to de-barrenize Bayview.



What plans?

Exactly, the plans have been cancelled. I expect more routes from the 'affordable' transit plan will also be cancelled when fiscal reality sets in.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The surface rail line if it had opened in 2009 as planned would have been supplemented by a tunnel as phase 2. This would have been inevitable. The fact that the north-south line will not use the tunnel proves that a surface line would have been useful in the long-term. We will now have to provide overcapacity on the Confederation Line to handle the extra traffic between Bayview and Hurdman.

You cannot have a one seat ride everywhere in a network. Changing seats whether it be between busses or trains is no different than changing airplanes to get to your destination. The trick is to have sufficient frequency on routes to minimize the waiting time. The object of a network is to spread the flow over the network and maximize the traffic over the whole network while minimizing costs, both capital and operational. At this stage we are only at the beginnings of establishing a network but over time it will appear.
The addition of a surface line would dramatically increase costs and cause increased congestion downtown which is one of the reasons for the construction of the tunnel in the first place. Interlining the O-train once electrified will only add rail congestion for the distance the O-train shares tracks on the Confederation line. If all the O-trains continued on the Confederation line to the end of the line in the east end you would be adding over capacity from Bayview east. Otherwise you are going to have to have delays switching directions at some mid point. Interlining also totally negates the possiblity of extending the O-train to Gatineau in the future.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, the proposed O-Train plan is badly constrained by its single track design and any future service expansion will again result in significant service shutdowns.

Much of the future construction to install double track does not require shut down of the O Train, especially south of the crossing of Via Rail tracks. A 2nd track an be built without any interference with the service on the existing track. Any failure to do this is a result of mismanagement by the city and or the contractor. The railways do not shut down the railroad when they build a 2nd track or bridge than for very short periods of time. Just because the city has been a failure managing the current expansion does not mean it with be a failure in the future.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I love how you harp on about south end, south end, south end while ignoring what's best for the city as a whole. The old LRT plan was good for the south and bad for everyone else. This plan is the best compromise for everyone.

And I will continue. Nobody here is advocating for the south end of the city. Especially, as long as people spout off information that is not entirely true.

The current plan is not a compromise. The Confederation Line will make access to downtown more difficult if you live in the south end. I have been to a meeting with Diane Deans and she admits that we receive zero benefit.

The compromise would have been to complete the original project and then build the tunnel. The tunnel could still have been completed in 2018. We would also not have wasted $100 million of taxpayers money. And that figure is increasing as we continue to put band aids on the O-Train (they are not free) and botch various components of the original plan, such as the South Keys pedestrian bridge and the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and reconstruct roads in Barrhaven to deal with the elimination of LRT.