Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[SF Thomas]

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.

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?

Was the tunnel in the Chiarelli official plan for phase 2 or is that an assumption you are making based on the needs of downtown? (I admit I didn't live in Ottawa back then so I'm not quite as aware of all the older details some people here probably are).

Regardless wouldn't building a surface line for LRT downtown and putting in the infrastructure for it and then building a tunnel after have been kind of redundant and a waste of money (though cancelling the original contract still was a waste as well....). I'm assuming (which is probably fairly realistic) that the tunnel would have become necessary sooner rather than later. I don't consider the 2 to 3 minute transfer period to be a big deal either.

On needing more capacity to deal with the combined western LRT and O Train traffic under the current plan we'd have had to deal with some of it anyways since the number of bus routes going downtown from the west would probably have been reduced with LRT under the original plan. Meaning a lot of people transferring from buses to LRT around Bayview anyways. Possibly the same with buses coming from the east as well. (Plus if the number of buses wasn't reduced then we'd likely have a big problem with the sections of merged bus/LRT lanes.)

I agree to some extent on the limitations of the O Train and having a single track, even with the plan to double track a few more areas. That being said I think getting the downtown tunnel done and the east-west focus is probably a bit more important as a starting point. While I admit it doesn't expand the area transit service covers as much LRT is a considerable improvement from the present bus system (I believe you agree on that considering what I've seen in past posts).

Capacity on the O Train is less of a pressing issue from what I can tell. While it is anecdotal I end up riding the O Train frequently (probably at least a few times a week) and I rarely see it absolutely filled to capacity. Definitely more than enough to justify the service but the only times it has generally come close to being full up is around 8 to 8:30 am on week days when all the students (until recently myself included) head to Carleton for morning classes in fall and winter. Even if you extend the O Train a bit further south and add the extra stops at Walkley and Gladstone I don't think capacity on the O Train will be a problem for the medium term future once frequency is up to 8 minutes. I'm pretty sure the trains themselves also can be expanded to add more passenger space.

Admittedly though the city has foregone building a stronger connection to Barrhaven and Riverside South by cancelling plans for the original O Train extension and now ending the potential extension at Riverside instead of in Barrhaven.


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


With service shut downs I assume you mean when something blocks the track or it is closed for maintenance issues. We probably deal with them the same way as in the past, try our best to work around it and add an extra bus route in the interim. Might be a bit obvious but double tracking the whole O Train doesn't insulate it from service disruptions either, even if it does reduce the risk of the whole service going down a bit.

[lrt's friend]

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.

The surface line into downtown connected to the O-Train would have eliminated the overcapacity that you described. By forcing transfers at Bayview, that is exactly when it becomes necessary to have overcapacity, not just eastward, but on the entire line. Sorry, what you say is false.

Building the O-Train northward into Gatineau makes this problem worse. More overcapacity will be needed on the entire Confederation Line for traffic running only between Bayview to the Rideau Centre. Having a route north-south on this corridor across the river provides direct service where there is not enough demand to justify it. Most of the traffic would be transferring at Bayview, little travelling beyond both ways.

The one seat nonsense has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I don't expect it and my argument does not expect it. There is sufficient demand today to justify a trunk line from the south end to downtown, so why are we designing a system that will not make that possible at any point in the future?

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.

So explain why every significant upgrade to date has resulted in major shutdowns of the O-Train? What you say is simply not believable. The part that is critical for double tracking will be the part that will require additional tunneling, bedrock cut expansion and bridge replacement. Rail companies would deal with this by rerouting trains on other track. This will not be possible in this case.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The compromise would have been to complete the original project and then build the tunnel. The tunnel could still have been completed in 2018..

With what money? The funding for the Confederation Line is the same Federal and Provincial money for the old NSLRT plan with more from the city. Plus you can't just build the tunnel without the rest of the new plan, there wasn't even momentum to do that. The NSLRT would have bled money from day 1 for years with low ridership past South Keys, while the Confederation line will save the city bus operating costs on the day it opens, providing fiscal incentive to expand the system further.

The streetcars (they were about the same size as the new TTC ones) would have been mired in the same traffic as the express buses, and their schedules would have been utterly unreliable. In fact, the current single-track O-train can probably keep a tighter schedule than a double-tracked line that had to venture into shared downtown streets. Transfers are a non-issue when schedules are reliable with high frequency.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

With what money? The funding for the Confederation Line is the same Federal and Provincial money for the old NSLRT plan with more from the city. Plus you can't just build the tunnel without the rest of the new plan, there wasn't even momentum to do that. The NSLRT would have bled money from day 1 for years with low ridership past South Keys, while the Confederation line will save the city bus operating costs on the day it opens, providing fiscal incentive to expand the system further.

The streetcars (they were about the same size as the new TTC ones) would have been mired in the same traffic as the express buses, and their schedules would have been utterly unreliable. In fact, the current single-track O-train can probably keep a tighter schedule than a double-tracked line that had to venture into shared downtown streets. Transfers are a non-issue when schedules are reliable with high frequency.

What money? Well, the previous funding was $400M of which $100M was blown. That brings us down to $300M. Now, how much money have we spent on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, the South Keys Pedestrian Bridge, and O-Train upgrades and new train sets? Over $100M? Could we have deferred some roadwork in the south end if the O-Train extension was opened on time? I think there could have been some saving there, at least temporarily. So the money we would have had to find would have not been as much as you would expect. We have to remember that the McGuinty government was really ticked off and this may have impacted the amount received on the Tunnel project. Isn't this why we got $600M instead of $700M. And the feds simply matched the province.

I truly believe that the funding for the tunnel would have been available.

The issue downtown would have been temporary until the tunnel opened and most of the buses removed from downtown. The NSLRT would have eliminated some buses earlier.

The NSLRT would have also directed development southward instead of continuing to build out in Cumberland and Stittsville where rapid transit is well beyond our finances. The demand for transit would have built faster than it is occurring without it.

The loss of savings from the Confederation Line assumes that it would have been delayed. I argue that the Confederation Line could have been built just as fast as it is today regardless of whether the NSLRT was built or not.

[SF Thomas]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What money? Well, the previous funding was $400M of which $100M was blown. That brings us down to $300M. Now, how much money have we spent on the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge, the South Keys Pedestrian Bridge, and O-Train upgrades and new train sets? Over $100M? Could we have deferred some roadwork in the south end if the O-Train extension was opened on time? I think there could have been some saving there, at least temporarily. So the money we would have had to find would have not been as much as you would expect. We have to remember that the McGuinty government was really ticked off and this may have impacted the amount received on the Tunnel project. Isn't this why we got $600M instead of $700M. And the feds simply matched the province.

I truly believe that the funding for the tunnel would have been available.

The issue downtown would have been temporary until the tunnel opened and most of the buses removed from downtown. The NSLRT would have eliminated some buses earlier.

The NSLRT would have also directed development southward instead of continuing to build out in Cumberland and Stittsville where rapid transit is well beyond our finances. The demand for transit would have built faster than it is occurring without it.

The loss of savings from the Confederation Line assumes that it would have been delayed. I argue that the Confederation Line could have been built just as fast as it is today regardless of whether the NSLRT was built or not.

So you are basically arguing that even with the potential downtown problems with the Chiarelli plan the rest of it probably would have made it worthwhile?

I can see some value in that argument; we'd at least be further ahead and maybe have avoided some of the current infrastructure issues like the Strandherd bridge. Shifting development to the south might have been preferable as well since it is geographically closer to the main city and easier to integrate.

A lot of this argument is based with the value of hindsight knowledge though. There wasn't a way of knowing that a lot of the mishaps would turn out the way they did.

I'm not as convinced that money would be available for the tunnel or that everyone would jump on that as the immediate solution to the problems downtown either. The downtown surface line would have been built pretty recently and suddenly we need more funding to fix a mistake from the last plan after we already have the LRT infrastructure in place.

Having the LRT surface line downtown in and of itself is still somewhat problematic for all the previous traffic problems mentioned. Again this is kind of wasteful in that we either end up with a fairly redundant surface LRT line which continues to cause problems even after the tunnel is made or we wasted a bunch of time installing that infrastructure only for it to be taken out like 10 years later.

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

If it was possible what might have been preferable was if the original contract could have been renegotiated to just do the line changes to Bayview (or maybe Lebreton even) and then go ahead with making the downtown tunnel separately. This might not have been realistic though since the new council under O'Brien didn't have a dedicated plan right away for how to solve the issue downtown. Since the tunnel probably would have taken longer to complete, assuming funding was even made available, this also means that the N/S LRT line has to wait a few years to be fully connected (not too much different from the current situation though).

Long term we'd still probably need to build LRT through the western part of the core city at least to Algonquin College/Baseline. This is really the only use I see for keeping the surface downtown line. If we keep the western LRT line connecting with the downtown portion at Bayview (running along either the River Parkway or Byron) having two lines allows a seamless connection to downtown without an extra transfer there. Still the problems with keeping the surface downtown line might outweigh this.

If you put a western line on Carling you end up with a similar transfer situation to the one under the current plan at Bayview. That would still exist to a lesser extent even if the western bus transitway were kept.

The other option is if you can integrate trains from both the N/S line and western line along a singular downtown track (at either Bayview or Carling depending on which route is used). This leads to other issues like ensuring the timing is safe and there is enough capacity downtown for double the number of trains. For people going beyond downtown they also have to ensure they are on the right train.

Overall some challenges and trade offs with each choice.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

Was the tunnel in the Chiarelli official plan for phase 2 or is that an assumption you are making based on the needs of downtown? (I admit I didn't live in Ottawa back then so I'm not quite as aware of all the older details some people here probably are).

Regardless wouldn't building a surface line for LRT downtown and putting in the infrastructure for it and then building a tunnel after have been kind of redundant and a waste of money (though cancelling the original contract still was a waste as well....). I'm assuming (which is probably fairly realistic) that the tunnel would have become necessary sooner rather than later. I don't consider the 2 to 3 minute transfer period to be a big deal either.

On needing more capacity to deal with the combined western LRT and O Train traffic under the current plan we'd have had to deal with some of it anyways since the number of bus routes going downtown from the west would probably have been reduced with LRT under the original plan. Meaning a lot of people transferring from buses to LRT around Bayview anyways. Possibly the same with buses coming from the east as well. (Plus if the number of buses wasn't reduced then we'd likely have a big problem with the sections of merged bus/LRT lanes.)

I agree to some extent on the limitations of the O Train and having a single track, even with the plan to double track a few more areas. That being said I think getting the downtown tunnel done and the east-west focus is probably a bit more important as a starting point. While I admit it doesn't expand the area transit service covers as much LRT is a considerable improvement from the present bus system (I believe you agree on that considering what I've seen in past posts).

Capacity on the O Train is less of a pressing issue from what I can tell. While it is anecdotal I end up riding the O Train frequently (probably at least a few times a week) and I rarely see it absolutely filled to capacity. Definitely more than enough to justify the service but the only times it has generally come close to being full up is around 8 to 8:30 am on week days when all the students (until recently myself included) head to Carleton for morning classes in fall and winter. Even if you extend the O Train a bit further south and add the extra stops at Walkley and Gladstone I don't think capacity on the O Train will be a problem for the medium term future once frequency is up to 8 minutes. I'm pretty sure the trains themselves also can be expanded to add more passenger space.

Admittedly though the city has foregone building a stronger connection to Barrhaven and Riverside South by cancelling plans for the original O Train extension and now ending the potential extension at Riverside instead of in Barrhaven.


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


With service shut downs I assume you mean when something blocks the track or it is closed for maintenance issues. We probably deal with them the same way as in the past, try our best to work around it and add an extra bus route in the interim. Might be a bit obvious but double tracking the whole O Train doesn't insulate it from service disruptions either, even if it does reduce the risk of the whole service going down a bit.

Thanks for the reasonable response. I have never tried to be unreasonable. I understand the primary need for east-west service.

Back when the NSLRT project was being chosen, it was all about a logical extension of the a pilot O-Train project that proved to be more successful than anticipated.

The city had already decided to build southward but there was a lack of transportation infrastructure. It was decided to use trains partly on existing track rather than build all sorts of new roads. And today, the south end is growing faster than either Kanata or Orleans. So, the justification still exists today.

I admit the Chiarelli plan was far from perfect. It did not address the downtown congestion problem. However, Bob Chiarelli also said that he was confident that City Council could deal with the issue. Blowing $100M was not the answer to this problem.

While the Chiarelli plan was not perfect, it was far more visionary than what we have today. It addressed the changing patterns of employment and retailing, which is moving to the suburbs. There is a limit to how much employment will be downtown in the future based on the geographical limits of downtown. It was sincerely trying to increase transit modal share. The current plan will have problems maintaining current modal share as the movement of employment to the suburbs will continue to bleed ridership.

I have said repeatedly that the tunnel is a necessity, however, we have perhaps chosen the most expensive approach to address the downtown issue. Before we have run one train from Place d'Orleans to Bayshore, we will have spent $4B. A lot of money to end up with the same rapid transit system as we have today. Yes, it will have more capacity and heads off congestion problems but the average rider will not experience faster service by the time they get out to Kanata or Barrhaven or Orleans or Beacon Hill. Its ability to attract new riders is questionable and City Council realizes that they don't know whether the public will take to the Confederation Line.

My concern with the O-Train relates to further service enhancements and it will be necessary some day. I understand the day to day problems, but I am most concerned about the day when more trains are needed. And this will come sooner now that it has been decided that service will be split to the airport. Every significant upgrade to the O-Train has shut the system down for months. We have to date worked around Carleton schedules because most of the riders are Carleton students but extensions southward will change this. This will further change when direct downtown service on the southeast transitway closes. At the present time, the vast majority of downtown passengers use the southeast transitway because of the direct service and because it is a more direct route to Ottawa U, Rideau Centre and the main office district east of Bank.

I am not a regular O-Train rider but I have been on it when it is very crowded. The current equipment is poorly designed for standing. I experienced that recently. The need for better service is apparent. The future changes will push more riders onto it and if service is extended, ridership will further increase. If trains only run every 16 minutes to Riverside South, those trains will eventually be filled to capacity and then what? If certain trains are at capacity, who cares if they run on time? People will be waiting for the next train. We talk about 2 or 3 minute waits but that only applies to the Confederation Line and only at peak hours.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

So you are basically arguing that even with the potential downtown problems with the Chiarelli plan the rest of it probably would have made it worthwhile?

I can see some value in that argument; we'd at least be further ahead and maybe have avoided some of the current infrastructure issues like the Strandherd bridge. Shifting development to the south might have been preferable as well since it is geographically closer to the main city and easier to integrate.

A lot of this argument is based with the value of hindsight knowledge though. There wasn't a way of knowing that a lot of the mishaps would turn out the way they did.

I'm not as convinced that money would be available for the tunnel or that everyone would jump on that as the immediate solution to the problems downtown either. The downtown surface line would have been built pretty recently and suddenly we need more funding to fix an mistake from the last plan after we already have the LRT infrastructure in place.

Having the LRT surface line downtown in and of itself is still somewhat problematic for all the previous traffic problems mentioned. Again this is kind of wasteful in that we either end up with a fairly redundant surface LRT line which continues to cause problems even after the tunnel is made or we wasted a bunch of time installing that infrastructure only for it to be taken out like 10 years later.

Of course, we would never know what would have happened. But my comments about funding don't relate to mishaps. At least $200M has been spent that would have not been necessary if we had proceeded with NSLRT project.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

You are living in dream land. At the end of the day there is only so much money to go around. To build a surface route and then turn around and build a tunnel as you suggest is colossal waste of money.
The improvements to the O-train, while slow and small are at least an attempt to increase frequency and thereby increase ridership. I agree much needs to be done on improving the O-train but small steps are better than no steps at all. To widen the trench between Carling and Gladstone, build another tunnel under Dows Lake, widen the bridge over the Rideau River and an underpass under the Via Rail tracks would cost millions of dollars. As long as there is a long term plan and continual progress is made towards it without long shutdowns there is nothing wrong with the current approach. Who wouldn't want to see this all done at once but the completion of the Confederation line is more important.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The surface line into downtown connected to the O-Train would have eliminated the overcapacity that you described. By forcing transfers at Bayview, that is exactly when it becomes necessary to have overcapacity, not just eastward, but on the entire line. Sorry, what you say is false.

You are saying there is over capacity on the bus transitway since O-train riders currently have to transfer at Bayview? I would beg to differ with you on that claim. Replacing the bus with the LRT will increase capacity along the whole line which will probably be taken up by increased ridership including O-train riders and not lead to a detrimental impact on service through the downtown.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Building the O-Train northward into Gatineau makes this problem worse. More overcapacity will be needed on the entire Confederation Line for traffic running only between Bayview to the Rideau Centre. Having a route north-south on this corridor across the river provides direct service where there is not enough demand to justify it. Most of the traffic would be transferring at Bayview, little travelling beyond both ways.

Once again the traffic flows will be only marginally greater than today's flow. Don't forget the crush load capacity of an LRT is significantly larger than a bus. You are also assuming no one will take the transitway between Greenboro and Hurdman. No public transport is 100% full along every part of its route.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The one seat nonsense has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I don't expect it and my argument does not expect it. There is sufficient demand today to justify a trunk line from the south end to downtown, so why are we designing a system that will not make that possible at any point in the future?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So explain why every significant upgrade to date has resulted in major shutdowns of the O-Train? What you say is simply not believable. The part that is critical for double tracking will be the part that will require additional tunneling, bedrock cut expansion and bridge replacement. Rail companies would deal with this by rerouting trains on other track. This will not be possible in this case.

Every upgrade requires an shutdown because the city and OC Transpo don't know what they are doing with railway construction. I never denied the fact that these shutdowns occur, I am just stating a fact that they need not occur.

Rail companies do not always reroute traffic when they undertake maintenance or expansion as most of the freight network in Canada is single track, alternative routes are impractical and they don't have the required standards to support heavy loads, long trains or increaded frequency.

[1overcosc]

In Toronto right now they're doing major work on the GO lines, including track widenings, bridge replacements, and new grade separations--and soon electrification. All while keeping service running.

The city didn't need to shut down the O-Train over the summer at all really. Shutdowns do make construction go faster & cheaper though (no need to work around actively running trains) so I suspect that's why the city went with it.

[J.OT13]

lrt's friend,

1. I agree that the Airport should get direct to downtown service. We should have considered dual-mode trains to run diesel down south and electric between Bayview and the Belfast Yards to accommodate direct to downtown;
2. There were no tunnel plan following the N/S. The plan was to have a bunch of O-trains along existing rail lines running in suburban and rural areas of Ottawa, far from any urban areas;
3. The N/S might have been great for the south end, but they were planning on cutting service to the east and west end to accommodate your choo-choo train;
4. The current Confederation Line along with Stage 2 might not serve the suburban south end, but it will serve a huge swath of Central-Urban Ottawa, urban neighborhoods like Little Italy, Hintonburgh/Wellington West, Westboro;
5. The subway will be a HUGE improvement for downtown;
6. A good part of the south end (Barrhaven) is and will continue to be well served by BRT with a good transfer point to the future ORT;
7. A cheap, effective solution can be found for Riverside south. Either extending buses from Barrhaven to Riverside South or having bus lanes up to the O-Train.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Belfast Yards construction starting. I wonder if/when Pepsi will be expropriated. With the massive Stage 2 plan, they will need a significant expansion of the rail yards or a second one. Best bet would likely expanding into the St-Laurent bus depot. Can't think of any other spot for rail yards, except maybe somewhere in Orleans?


http://www.confederationline.ca/#target3211

Could Pinecrest Garage be converted into a rail yard for the west end? The bus capacity would decrease, and they could increase the size of Merivale Garage to compensate (or build a new smaller garage in Kanata).

[eternallyme]

Re: the north-south line, it is easy to forget several things.

Look to the north of Bayview. An existing rail bridge (admittedly will need structural upgrades) exists. That bridge could be very useful in connecting Ottawa and Gatineau. On the other side of the river, you immediately reach the turn point for the Rapibus system. A short walk (less than 5 minutes) would allow passengers to reach the STO crosstown and Aylmer routes without ever having to go downtown (and UQO isn't far away either). There is also a rail line that continues for nearly a kilometre, all the way to the Domtar facility. Reconstruction of the abandoned building could easily place a station there right across from Terrasses de la Chaudiere and within a short walk of Place du Portage. That area is the #2 business area in terms of employers in the National Capital Region.

Having transfer points in Gatineau leads to several benefits:

1) The STO wouldn't have to run nearly as many buses into downtown Ottawa, just enough to maintain the capacity for those travelling downtown as opposed to a large number of routes, and could terminate more buses in downtown Hull, similar to the existing 100/200. That would reduce bus traffic on Rideau Street substantially. OC Transpo could also reduce the number of buses into Gatineau as many 105's would be unnecessary (only enough to serve the more distant parts like Sacre-Coeur).

2) Those who live in Gatineau and work in Ottawa outside of downtown, particularly at Confederation Heights or Carleton University, would have a MUCH quicker trip. For example, a trip from La Cite Station to Confederation Heights today would take STO 200->through Rideau Centre->OC 87, which takes about 65-80 minutes (accounting for walking and transfers).

With the O-Train extended, it would be either STO 100->O-Train, which would only take about 45 minutes (significant savings) or STO 800->O-Train with a walk, which would take about 40-50 minutes. Either way, the difference is very significant.

Likewise to Carleton University, there would be enormous savings.

Today: STO 200->walk 2 blocks (or cross at Rideau Centre)->OC 4, about 65-80 minutes
With extended O-Train: as above, about 40 minutes

3) For those who live in Ottawa and work in Gatineau, they would have fewer transfers, especially from the south end, and a much shorter travel time. From South Keys to Chaudiere, for example, would be about a 25 minute ride. Currently, it takes about 35-45 minutes, depending on traffic. It would be an all-day connection as well, not just during peak periods.

4) It moves transfer points around for west-end destination trips and reduces crowding downtown, even if trips require an additional transfer they would take less time (for example, someone from Gatineau transferring to Route 85 to go to the Civic Hospital requires one additional vehicle, but much less time).

[eltodesukane]

http://www.confederationline.ca/#target3211
images and maps are too small, useless...

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Toronto right now they're doing major work on the GO lines, including track widenings, bridge replacements, and new grade separations--and soon electrification. All while keeping service running.

The city didn't need to shut down the O-Train over the summer at all really. Shutdowns do make construction go faster & cheaper though (no need to work around actively running trains) so I suspect that's why the city went with it.

When the O-Train reopened in September, most of the work was yet to be done. Neither passing track was complete and there were no signals. The only things that necessitated closures at that point were switch installations and platform work, both things that could likely be accomplished by weekend closures or station closures (eg. train doesn't stop at a station because the concrete for the extenders is still hardening).

The nature of the O-Train's service (mostly Carleton) just happens to make it easy to close it for the summer, but I have a feeling this is what makes it easy to justify drawing out the construction schedule. Originally it was to be complete in January, but when that quickly slipped to March or later someone probably realized it wasn't worth rushing to provide a month of increased service before reverting to the summer schedule. I have a feeling things will now be ready for September.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Toronto right now they're doing major work on the GO lines, including track widenings, bridge replacements, and new grade separations--and soon electrification. All while keeping service running.

The city didn't need to shut down the O-Train over the summer at all really. Shutdowns do make construction go faster & cheaper though (no need to work around actively running trains) so I suspect that's why the city went with it.

They are able to do that all over the world.

Mind you, it's cheaper to do a full shutdown and work right through what needs to be done... which is why that's what Ottawa does.

Ottawa is cheap.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

I don't know, the number of cities that have a direct rail-based public transit link (as opposed to some sort of specialized airport service) between the main airport and city centre is pretty small: e.g. Chicago, Vancouver, San Francisco, Athens, Paris, London (depending on where one thinks the city centre is). Most either require some sort of bus (Montreal, Toronto, Dulles, Dublin, LA, Berlin) at least one transfer (Rome, New York, Boston, Barcelona) or an intercity train (Amsterdam, Brussels)

I don't think when the LRT is compete it would be obvious to a visitor that they were in a barren location at Bayview (they would be inside a station following signs between the o-train and the confederation line).

That being said, I'm skeptical of the value of a rail service in a city of Ottawa's size when the road connections are good - for people in a hurry a taxi can beat almost any rail-based option downtown and people trying to save money aren't going to be looking for a premium service.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That being said, I'm skeptical of the value of a rail service in a city of Ottawa's size when the road connections are good - for people in a hurry a taxi can beat almost any rail-based option downtown and people trying to save money aren't going to be looking for a premium service.

I agree. That's why I think we should keep the status quo--a bust to the airport via the SE Transitway--truncated at Hurdman post-Confederation Line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Could Pinecrest Garage be converted into a rail yard for the west end? The bus capacity would decrease, and they could increase the size of Merivale Garage to compensate (or build a new smaller garage in Kanata).

I thought that might be a possibility until I checked it out on Google Maps; I think the Pinecrest site might be too small for rail yards.

[J.OT13]

What if the O-Train (as LRT or DMV technology) crossed to Québec and looped through Hull back to Rideau with underground sections between Terrace de la Chaudière-Civilization and Beaux-Arts-Rideau.

This would not solve the lack of direct to downtown rapid transit for suburban Gatineau, but it would make for a much easier connection for residents on the Ontario side working in Qc. furthermore, this would solve the Airport-Downtown issue.

Cost is an obvious problem of course. I would estimate that the downtown loop might come up to around 1.2 billion. The combined tunnel sections would be the same length as the DOTT with 3 underground stations (Portage, Civilization Rideau) with 100 meters platforms (compared to 125 meters for DOTT) and 3 above ground stations (Alexandre Taché, Chaudière, Beaux-Arts).