Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Despite other comments made in the last day or two to try to justify a continuous north-south route through Bayview, I still believe that the vast majority of the passenger traffic will be heading downtown and that justifies a transfer free trip. For the minority of the traffic on the north-south route wanting a through trip, a transfer seems reasonable.

Agreed. The elimination of the direct N/S to downtown line was short-sighted and will result in unnecessary transfers and longer dwell times.

It's not like multiple lines converging into one downtown is a new concept, many cities in Europe such as Oslo and Copenhagen do it.

[lrt's friend]

There is another reason for justifying the twinning of the Airport Parkway and that is already existing congestion that is inevitably going to get worse in the future. This is already impeding access to the airport which is not good for airline travellers. I do not believe that an O-Train extension into the airport will significantly reduce the building congestion problem. It is for this reason that I hope and expect that the airport authority will at least partially fund an airport O-Train route.

[Aylmer]

I think that, at the very least, LRT to the airport will reduce the sometimes ridiculous traffic caused by people and taxis going round and round waiting to pick someone up. With attractive (and not friggn' expensive like in Vancouver or Toronto) transit within baggage-dragging distance of the terminal, I think that a lot of people will take it, if not to get home, than at least to a easier pickup location closer to home. For example, if I were to fly into Ottawa, I would take the OTrain to Bayview, which is much closer for my family to pick me up.

[McC]

"Friggin expensive?" The Canada Line from YVR is what $7.50? Think of it this way: that's adding in the range of 1-2% to your airfare to get you downtown, I think it's a great deal.

[McC]

Sorry, $7.75.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by McC

"Friggin expensive?" The Canada Line from YVR is what $7.50? Think of it this way: that's adding in the range of 1-3% to your airfare to get you downtown, I think it's a great deal.

Aylmer's likely referring more so to Toronto where the UPX train is planned to charge some $25-$30 each way, for which it has come under heavy fire.

[Aylmer]

Sorry, I thought Vancouver was more expensive. I remember that it was some 15-20€ to get from Brussels Airport to the city.

Though frankly, I just find it a bit annoying to pay more to come from an airport (especially if you're a group or a family) - why should I pay more to go to the airport as opposed to the train station or to the university? I know that transit agencies can more than get away with it, but it just seams a bit cheap.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Richard:
I do hope that the O-Train alignment is a whole lot closer to the terminal than shown. If that is where it will be, we will need a shuttle bus between the terminal and the O-Train anyways. To be useful, the train needs to come right next to the terminal. Your alignment is way out next to the cargo offices and that is not at all a pedestrian friendly area.

Of course there would be a proper design and the line would actually go where it is most useful; this was simply a quick sketch to demonstrate an idea. My point is that it should not cost significantly more to use an extended O-Train to handle the transportation requirement from the south AND service the airport on the main southern line; so that there is no Airport spur to decrease the capacity to the southern communities.

You now seem to be arguing that there is too much traffic on the Airport Parkway so it must need to be twinned. Well, where and when is that traffic? It is during the peak periods and it is traffic that is heading into town in the morning and back to the southern communities in the afternoon. I find it a bit odd that you wanted to build the NS-LRT so that there would be less vehicle traffic from and to Riverside South - that people would leave their cars at home and use the LRT. Well, that is what I am suggesting too. If we build an LRT line into Riverside South, I think that we could dispense with a lot of the road widening. And that leaving the roads narrow would direct people to opt for transit instead of driving.

Also, congestion happens on the Airport Parkway because people are pretty much forced to take their own vehicle when attending a function at the E&Y Centre. If there were convenient LRT to an E&Y Centre Station, I think that more people would choose not to pay the $7.00 parking fee and waste a lot of time sitting in a line-up of cars.

According to the City, there is already a market for transit in Riverside South, but there is no real demand for a spur line into the airport - yet. Well, if the City adjusted the routing of the O-Train extension, then it would not be a case of either/or; both the airport and Riverside South would be served by the main line.

I am a fan of large roads which act as a conduit to move a large number of vehicles in a useful way, but twinning the Airport Parkway doesn't seem to be sensible to me. There really is a bottle-neck at the north end, and the existing two-lane capacity is plenty for virtually all the hours of the day - except for the brief peak periods, twice a day. There is a better way to move people from Riverside South into the city than building them a short section of road that leads them into more congestion; the City needs to be promoting LRT to Riverside South (AND the airport).

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Here’s an idea: If there is so much built-up transportation demand that the City needs to twin the Airport Parkway; and if sending every second O-Train to the airport on a spur would reduce the capacity to Riverside South by too much; why not build the O-Train extension along the Airport Parkway – and NOT twin it for cars?

As I understand it, the current plan is to twin the Parkway so that twice as many cars can race north from Hunt Club and Riverside South areas – only to hit the Glebe and congestion along Bronson. There is also a plan to extend the O-Train, along an existing right of way, south PAST the airport into Riverside South. In order to extend the O-Train, though, the existing rail bed must be rejuvenated and the rails must be replaced with new, continuous (welded) ones. A future spur will be added into the airport, but every train that turns to go to the airport is one less train that goes to Riverside South.

OK, I suggest that the City doesn’t spend tens of millions to expand the road capacity just to handle the rush-hours and instead uses that money plus the money that would have been used to recondition and upgrade the existing tracks between South Keys and the airport spur, and put that money into putting the E&Y Centre, the airport, and the hotel directly on the O-Train line that goes all the way to Riverside South. Every train goes to all destinations, and the demand for transportation into the city is handled by train instead of cars.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of sending the O-Train to the airport, but rather the expansion of Airport Parkway. From what I understand, the parkway is only being expanded from Hunt Club south to the Airport, and the expansion will only add taxi and bus lanes.

When I first heard the plan, I thought it was referring to expanding the entire parkway as well, but this seems incorrect. Expanding the southern section for buses and taxis makes some sense, since the SE Transitway ends at Hunt Club and buses can then continue to the airport on a lane shared with taxis. This expansion will come much faster than any O-Train extension, and Airports are one of the few places I can justify being car-centric. Taking transit to the airport makes sense in the classic business traveler downtown scenario, but adding luggage, unusual flight times and bringing multiple people to say goodbye/welcome someone back and the need to be there on time make the car a justifiable option, especially when transfers to local bus routes would be involved.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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 2003 TMP and the subsequent N-S LRT EA never envisaged a tunnel. Indeed it was specifically rejected in both studies as they felt a need to respond to public suggestions for one arising out of the public consultation processes.

We have to recall that in this era Ottawa was still in the thrall of the BRT lobby. The 2003 TMP upheld the policy dating from early RMOC times of having BRT as the primary element of rapid transit system. LRT was a distinctly secondary element on corridors like the O-Train, Carling, Rideau, E-W bypass, etc.

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.

I don't see how you can reasonably argue that. Let's just look at the timelines in the hypothetical N-S LRT timeline and the real timeline.

The N-S LRT, if built according to schedule, would have opened in 2009. That's already a year *after* the 2008 TMP which proposed the Confederation Line. The point here is that even if was acknowledged very soon after the N-S LRT opening that its downtown arrangement was a shambles, we'd at best be then in 2009 where we were in reality in 2007.

Far more likely is that we as a city would have spent 2010-2012 arguing, debating, recriminating, seeing off Andy Haydonesque demands for a bus tunnel, etc., before finally deciding what to do and what to put in the 2013 TMP. Only *now* would we have started any kind of planning for a Confederation Line. Well that's a good 5 years behind where we actually are now.

On top of that, you're assuming we would have gone for a rail tunnel in light of buses jamming up light rail and vice versa downtown. I doubt that very much. Far more likely in my estimation is that we would have gone about looking into ways to make a surface solution work, and one group in particular would have been in a position to say "I told you so" and probably get listened to.

We basically would have found ourselves building the downtown part of the Friends of the O-Train proposal. First on the list would be extension to Hurdman and the construction of a bus terminal at Bayview so as to kick most of the buses out of downtown. But thirty two-car trains an hour would be straining to deliver the needed capacity, so the next thing to do would be to try to find ways to extend the platform lengths for longer trains, including possibly relocating trackwork.

This would not have been cheap, but less expensive and certainly quicker than a tunnel. Even so, all this would easily have occupied another few years following the opening of the N-S LRT in 2009.

As a consequence, only about now (or last year, say) would we even be talking about extending LRT further out along the Transitway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

The 2003 TMP and the subsequent N-S LRT EA never envisaged a tunnel. Indeed it was specifically rejected in both studies as they felt a need to respond to public suggestions for one arising out of the public consultation processes.

We have to recall that in this era Ottawa was still in the thrall of the BRT lobby. The 2003 TMP upheld the policy dating from early RMOC times of having BRT as the primary element of rapid transit system. LRT was a distinctly secondary element on corridors like the O-Train, Carling, Rideau, E-W bypass, etc.



I don't see how you can reasonably argue that. Let's just look at the timelines in the hypothetical N-S LRT timeline and the real timeline.

The N-S LRT, if built according to schedule, would have opened in 2009. That's already a year *after* the 2008 TMP which proposed the Confederation Line. The point here is that even if was acknowledged very soon after the N-S LRT opening that its downtown arrangement was a shambles, we'd at best be then in 2009 where we were in reality in 2007.

Far more likely is that we as a city would have spent 2010-2012 arguing, debating, recriminating, seeing off Andy Haydonesque demands for a bus tunnel, etc., before finally deciding what to do and what to put in the 2013 TMP. Only *now* would we have started any kind of planning for a Confederation Line. Well that's a good 5 years behind where we actually are now.

On top of that, you're assuming we would have gone for a rail tunnel in light of buses jamming up light rail and vice versa downtown. I doubt that very much. Far more likely in my estimation is that we would have gone about looking into ways to make a surface solution work, and one group in particular would have been in a position to say "I told you so" and probably get listened to.

We basically would have found ourselves building the downtown part of the Friends of the O-Train proposal. First on the list would be extension to Hurdman and the construction of a bus terminal at Bayview so as to kick most of the buses out of downtown. But thirty two-car trains an hour would be straining to deliver the needed capacity, so the next thing to do would be to try to find ways to extend the platform lengths for longer trains, including possibly relocating trackwork.

This would not have been cheap, but less expensive and certainly quicker than a tunnel. Even so, all this would easily have occupied another few years following the opening of the N-S LRT in 2009.

As a consequence, only about now (or last year, say) would we even be talking about extending LRT further out along the Transitway.

You may be right. But Larry O'Brien was in a position to follow legal advice and proceed with the original contract and move forward with his idea to build the tunnel as Phase 2 for an east-west route. This could have achieved the tunnel in the same time frame. Maybe with the urgency of cleaning up the downtown mess with trains built into the mix, we could have actually had it opened by our special anniversary in 2017. Regardless, I think we all agree that we did an awful lot of dithering as it was and we lost several years as a consequence.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Of course there would be a proper design and the line would actually go where it is most useful; this was simply a quick sketch to demonstrate an idea. My point is that it should not cost significantly more to use an extended O-Train to handle the transportation requirement from the south AND service the airport on the main southern line; so that there is no Airport spur to decrease the capacity to the southern communities.

You now seem to be arguing that there is too much traffic on the Airport Parkway so it must need to be twinned. Well, where and when is that traffic? It is during the peak periods and it is traffic that is heading into town in the morning and back to the southern communities in the afternoon. I find it a bit odd that you wanted to build the NS-LRT so that there would be less vehicle traffic from and to Riverside South - that people would leave their cars at home and use the LRT. Well, that is what I am suggesting too. If we build an LRT line into Riverside South, I think that we could dispense with a lot of the road widening. And that leaving the roads narrow would direct people to opt for transit instead of driving.

Also, congestion happens on the Airport Parkway because people are pretty much forced to take their own vehicle when attending a function at the E&Y Centre. If there were convenient LRT to an E&Y Centre Station, I think that more people would choose not to pay the $7.00 parking fee and waste a lot of time sitting in a line-up of cars.

According to the City, there is already a market for transit in Riverside South, but there is no real demand for a spur line into the airport - yet. Well, if the City adjusted the routing of the O-Train extension, then it would not be a case of either/or; both the airport and Riverside South would be served by the main line.

I am a fan of large roads which act as a conduit to move a large number of vehicles in a useful way, but twinning the Airport Parkway doesn't seem to be sensible to me. There really is a bottle-neck at the north end, and the existing two-lane capacity is plenty for virtually all the hours of the day - except for the brief peak periods, twice a day. There is a better way to move people from Riverside South into the city than building them a short section of road that leads them into more congestion; the City needs to be promoting LRT to Riverside South (AND the airport).

I personally don't like the idea of twinning the airport parkway and I realize the problems it creates further in town, but the congestion problem is causing access problems to the airport and we seem to be no where close to any sort of transit solution in any reasonable time frame. As it stands, the city is not putting in much effort at all into making transit attractive in Riverside South and even worse in Findlay Creek which is directly funneling traffic onto the airport parkway. I remind everybody that Findlay Creek gets a half hourly transfer route even during peak periods. That is no way to attract people out of their cars. OC Transpo comments that ridership is so low that they can't justify better service but isn't that the same thing as which came first, the chicken or egg? We can't improve service because nobody uses the bus but nobody uses the bus because the service is so bad.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I'm not going to get into the discussion of sending the O-Train to the airport, but rather the expansion of Airport Parkway. From what I understand, the parkway is only being expanded from Hunt Club south to the Airport, and the expansion will only add taxi and bus lanes.

When I first heard the plan, I thought it was referring to expanding the entire parkway as well, but this seems incorrect. Expanding the southern section for buses and taxis makes some sense, since the SE Transitway ends at Hunt Club and buses can then continue to the airport on a lane shared with taxis. This expansion will come much faster than any O-Train extension, and Airports are one of the few places I can justify being car-centric. Taking transit to the airport makes sense in the classic business traveler downtown scenario, but adding luggage, unusual flight times and bringing multiple people to say goodbye/welcome someone back and the need to be there on time make the car a justifiable option, especially when transfers to local bus routes would be involved.

Thanks for clarifying that. It is quite the coincidence that I am only suggesting running the O-Train extension along the Airport Parkway from Hunt Club to the airport – exactly the section that is proposed to be twinned. And you say that the extra roadway lanes are for transit and taxis; well how about that, since I am suggesting that a transit line be constructed in place of the roadway lanes. If there were a cheap ($3.00), fairly direct, transit route to the airport every eight minutes, maybe there would be a lot fewer expensive taxis along that stretch, too.

And, again, why is the road so clogged that it needs to be twinned? Because people from south of the airport feel that they need to take their cars into the city because it is better than the available transit being provided. Maybe if the residents of Riverside South had a good LRT transit line, they could leave their cars at home and that would help un-clog the Airport Parkway. Personally, I have not seen any traffic congestion between Uplands Drive and the airport’s parking structure (excluding directly in front of the terminal, of course). The congestion on the Airport Parkway is north of Uplands Drive and is caused by peak-period commuters using Hunt Club and Uplands, and occasionally from cars exiting from the Parkway onto Uplands to get to the E & Y Centre. I have not seen any traffic problems heading north on the Airport Parkway (except for delays caused by the perpetual construction of the pedestrian bridge). If we can remove a portion of the commuter traffic, then the airport traffic might not be congested.

And, why would the City be thinking about extending the O-Train AND widening the parallel road? A little bit of road congestion could be a good thing to point people toward transit. And since the O-Train will not be stuck in that congestion, it might be the faster way to get home from downtown. People sitting in their cars, stuck in traffic, can watch the trains zoom by them. As so many on this forum are wont to say “Adding more road capacity only encourages more car traffic.” So let’s try to encourage LRT travel instead of car travel.

Then there is the theory of ‘Divide and Conquer’. The City has learned that doing things in pieces often minimizes the complaints it gets. If it widens a section of road south of a bottle-neck, say widening the Airport Parkway from Hunt Club to the airport, it will have greater justification to widen the remaining problem area; for example, the rest of the Airport Parkway, between Hunt Club and Bronson. In fact, this additional widening is already being planned for; the new (future) pedestrian bridge at South Keys is being built so that the roadway can be widened under it.

Of course, most of the traffic to the airport will continue to be from the north, but there is also the question of how traffic patterns to the airport are going to change once the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge opens. Will more people be approaching the airport from the south-east; i.e., wrapping around the south of the airport? Should more people (and maybe buses) be encouraged to take Uplands Drive from Hunt Club (i.e., close the south-bound ramp from Hunt Club onto the Parkway)? Will a switch to Uplands happen naturally with the opening of the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge? Will the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge encourage more drivers from Barrhaven to come to the Airport Parkway to go into town?

And while I am thinking of future possibilities, how about using some of that expanse of parking at the E & Y Centre for an O-Train Park & Ride, a la Canadian Tire Centre, since a large portion of it is unused for most work days.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You may be right. But Larry O'Brien was in a position to follow legal advice and proceed with the original contract and move forward with his idea to build the tunnel as Phase 2 for an east-west route. This could have achieved the tunnel in the same time frame. Maybe with the urgency of cleaning up the downtown mess with trains built into the mix, we could have actually had it opened by our special anniversary in 2017. Regardless, I think we all agree that we did an awful lot of dithering as it was and we lost several years as a consequence.

The N/S without the downtown portion was approved by the City as a good compromise between the needs of the south and not killing downtown with surface rail. But as I recall, the last nail in the coffin for that plan was Baird's refusal to hand over the 200 million for the shorter line.

[S-Man]

The N/S without the downtown portion was approved by the City as a good compromise between the needs of the south and not killing downtown with surface rail. But as I recall, the last nail in the coffin for that plan was Baird's refusal to hand over the 200 million for the shorter line.

There was a shortened plan floated with no downtown part? When was this? I can't recall this from all the hubub at that time, but I can imagine it wouldn't be something I'd like to see built!

[EdFromOttawa]

Ugh look at all these Torontonians on the Toronto Reddit page complaining about Wynne's "pandering" to the rest of Ontario on transit funding.... They argue that Toronto, as economic driver of the whole country, should be prioritized in all transit projects.

Take a look at your own risk to mental well-being.... http://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/23l4w4/the_rest_of_ontario_shouldnt_pay_for_torontos/

[S-Man]

Ugh look at all these Torontonians on the Toronto Reddit page complaining about Wynne's "pandering" to the rest of Ontario on transit funding.... They argue that Toronto, as economic driver of the whole country, should be prioritized in all transit projects.

Take a look at your own risk to mental well-being.... http://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comm..._for_torontos/

Oh, please no....my mind can't take it. These guys seriously don't realize how good they have it. Special darlings must have hit their heads on the edge of the GTA bubble (It's like Under the Dome, but opaque).

I've heard this argument before recently, and it drives me nuts. The rest of Ontario is not a group of peasant serfs who should work an extra few hours in the field after dark to pay extra to their elite masters in the shiny castle.

People in other towns and cities pay gas tax, HST - and a lot of it - and deserve to have a proportionate share go back into their local surroundings, which could help their local economy. Which - SURPRISE - would help ALL OF ONTARIO'S economy!

The whole "We're bigger - we're carrying all yooz guyz" line of thinking doesn't help anything.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by S-Man

There was a shortened plan floated with no downtown part? When was this? I can't recall this from all the hubub at that time, but I can imagine it wouldn't be something I'd like to see built!

It lasted for about 2 weeks in December 2006 before Baird pulled the plug. IMO, in would have been a good idea; build the N/S portion now (06-07) for the cheapest possible price so we can then concentrate entirely on east-west instead of wasting more time bickering about who gets what when.

I can't find a credible news source, but check out the "cancellation of expansion" section of Wikipedia's O-Train page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Train

[eternallyme]

As for a direct-to-downtown route from the south end, that could be a Bank Street subway which is frequently mentioned here. That would be the most logical, as it would be a DIRECT route into downtown, with stops at densifying areas along Bank Street, Lansdowne and Billings Bridge. Sure this is beyond 2023, but if funding becomes available after the TMP is completed...although Kanata and Barrhaven extensions would compete with it as well.

Such could easily tie into the Montreal Road route as well.

The most likely route and alignment I could think of:

* It would start near the Rideau Centre (extending eastward, but a different segment), just north of the Confederation Line station (different platforms).

* If security isn't too much of a concern, it would run beneath Wellington Street, curving to beneath Bank Street, which it would mostly remain for about 7 km.

* First station - Parliament, beneath Queen to Albert Streets, connecting directly to the Confederation Line station (beneath it, in a cross-formation with overhead transfers).

* Second station - Somerset, beneath Cooper to Somerset Streets, for mid-Centretown access

* Third station - Gladstone, beneath Frank Street to Gladstone Avenue, for lower Centretown access

* Fourth station - Chamberlain, beneath Highway 417 and Chamberlain/Isabella, one block from the Ottawa intercity bus station, for the far northern Glebe and Highway 417 area

* Fifth station - Glebe, between First and Second Avenues, for the central Glebe area

* Sixth station - Lansdowne, near the front of Lansdowne Park, serving the southern Glebe area and Lansdowne Park (important for major events!)

* Seventh station - Old Ottawa South, between Belmont and Grove Avenues, for Old Ottawa South access

* At that point, Bank Street curves slightly. The rail line would shift slightly west of Bank Street, likely requiring a bored tunnel (most of the Bank Street section can be cut-and-cover), to clear the Rideau River.

* Eighth station - Billings Bridge, just west of the existing bus station, beneath Billings Bridge Plaza, serving Billings Bridge, the local area and transfers to the east-west BRT route (existing Southeast Transitway).

* Once there, a steep uphill section is encountered. The terrain supports a slow rise in the grade of the rail line, but remaining underground, with a bored tunnel to avoid community disruption.

* Ninth station - Heron Park, roughly under the old freight rail connection line, beneath Heron Road, for access to Heron Park.

* The gradient is fairly level now. It is a straight stretch to the Southeast Transitway from here, and when the rail line can safely clear the O-Train line, it will finally rise to the surface onto the SE Transitway corridor, where it would remain as far as South Keys.

* Next stations - Walkley, Greenboro and South Keys remain in their current locations where the Transitway runs. From there, options exist - to the Airport or to Riverside South? The O-Train corridor has the same question.

NOTE: despite being a subway for much of its length, it would likely use LRT equipment.

[J.OT13]

Fully grade separated with Confederation Line type technology. This is my dream subway line for Ottawa (as phase 1 of a line that would extend to CFB Rockliffe and Blair via Montreal Road).