Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Why can't metro-grade LRT become driverless in the future?
And for all its shininess, light metro isn't everything; Vancouver's Canada Line currently has a capacity of about 6000 pphpd and a theoretical capacity of 10 000 (versus the 26 000 of our lowly 'trams').

As for width, subways aren't always as wide as Toronto's: Montreal is exactly the same width as the Citadis LRVs, but no one questions whether it might be a streetcar or not.

I just don't know if LRT is a meaningful designation when it describes low-floor, high-floor, low-capacity, high-capacity, short distance, long distance, grade-separated and mixed-traffic systems. At some point, it just means so many things that it becomes meaningless. So sure, our system is LRT, but it's undeniably high-capacity, fully grade-separated and has high frequencies. According to any reasonable definition, that's a metro.

I don't think there is such a thing as "metro grade" trams, there are just trams, if a city chooses to use them in a fully grade-separated setting that is up to them (you could run rickshaws in a tunnel if you really want to).

I'm sure it would be possible to run them driverless, but everything would have to be re-engineered for that purpose, because nobody else uses trams the way Ottawa does (although Metrolinx is planning to in Toronto for equally questionable reasons). There are lots of off-the-shelf driverless light metro systems used all over the world.

[Aylmer]

Here are some metrics which I'd propose that I think would be relevant to the passengers' experience

Average total trip time (including average wait time [headway/2] and the less calculable average walk time): This metric aims to reward speed (vehicle time), but also good stop placement (walk time) and high frequencies (wait time). A super fast trip downtown means a lot less if you have to walk a kilometer on both ends and it only passes every hour.

Dependability/predictability: the maximum possible variation in trip times - things like wait times, transfer time, interference by traffic, etc. This metric rewards things like high frequencies, separation from traffic and makes the difference between good transfers (i.e. transfers between lines with low headways), bad transfers (between lines with high headways) and bad transfer mitigation (lines which go from everywhere to everywhere without a transfer, but with half or a third of the frequency). The aim is to determine how well you can predict a certain trip will take if you just show up at a station.

Simplicity: how easy is it to glance at a map and know how to get around. The Rapibus is an example of an almost comedic complexity with its looping lines and poorly indicated one-way hours. Things like the simplicity of a transfer layout can also be included here - a transfer through Paris's metro tunnel maze isn't the same as walking up a flight of stairs at Bayview.

Comfort: this includes things like capacity ("Will I get a seat or be standing in a crush-capacity train?") and frequency ("How long will I wait"), but also the quality of stations (lighting, heating, safety, etc.), the ride quality and, importantly, the walk quality - exiting a station in a parking lot beside a highway (Hello, Blair) is not at all the same as exiting on a walkable main street (future Pimisi).

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think there is such a thing as "metro grade" trams, there are just trams, if a city chooses to use them in a fully grade-separated setting that is up to them (you could run rickshaws in a tunnel if you really want to).
.

So if Montreal's metro cars came above grade and ran in mixed traffic on Ste-Catherine, would it not change how you would qualify the system? If yes, then the opposite (running trams as a metro) should also be true. If no, then it's a useless technical designation completely irrelevant to how the system works or, more importantly, is used.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think there is such a thing as "metro grade" trams, there are just trams, if a city chooses to use them in a fully grade-separated setting that is up to them (you could run rickshaws in a tunnel if you really want to).

I'm sure it would be possible to run them driverless, but everything would have to be re-engineered for that purpose, because nobody else uses trams the way Ottawa does (although Metrolinx is planning to in Toronto for equally questionable reasons). There are lots of off-the-shelf driverless light metro systems used all over the world.

The Confederation Line will be built with automation systems roughed in. Braking will be automated on opening day, acceleration human until it changes in the future. That will change whenever capacity dictates, as without automation the maximum frequency is 30tph but with it its 40tph. (This will take a while. Confederation Line will only be at 45% capacity on opening day).

Light metro would probably be more expensive actually, as it requires greater turn radii which would have required even further realignment (Confederation Line ROW deviates from the existing Transitway route by some 50-100 metres through Lebreton and around the train station) and a more expensive tunnel alignment.

'Metro grade' isn't about the vehicles it's the way they're run. Only a transit enthusiast who cares about vehicle types is going to particularly care about whether the Confederation Line uses light metro vehicles, tram vehicles, or traditional subway cars. All they care about is the high frequencies, high capacity, and grade separation. Most riders don't even know the difference between them.

[1overcosc]

A note about automation: it's not necessarily required for a line to be fully grade separated to be automated. It's technologically possible (though currently not allowed by regulations), for even a mixed traffic streetcar to be automated. Heck in 15 years we'll probably have fully automated private autos on the roads.

[eternallyme]

Surface-level, on-street LRT often seems to be accident-prone as well.

For example, in Houston, their surface LRT has had over 300 accidents since it opened in 2004, mostly due to drivers and pedestrians ignoring signals or signs. http://www.bloghouston.com/blog/2014/01/...ash-update-chron-story-hundreds-crashes/

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Surface-level, on-street LRT often seems to be accident-prone as well.

For example, in Houston, their surface LRT has had over 300 accidents since it opened in 2004, mostly due to drivers and pedestrians ignoring signals or signs. http://www.bloghouston.com/blog/2014/01/...ash-update-chron-story-hundreds-crashes/

Keeping it grade separated throughout and with low platforms would prevent accidents such as these:
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/sports/...child-killed-in-lrt-accident/97918620001

[Aylmer]

It's worth pointing out that accidents happen in totally grade-separated systems as well - not long ago, a young woman fell in the gap between two metro cars in Montreal (though I think it would end differently in a low-floor system). Automatic doors are really the only way to completely eliminate accidents.

But at any rate, grade-separated or not, it's a hellava lot safer than automobiles, a lot more if you consider accidents per people moved.

[eemy]

If someone falls on the tracks in a low floor system, though, accidentally or not, it is much easier to get them off as opposed to getting them onto a platform 4 ft above the tracks. I believe most high floor platforms have an area beneath them adjacent to the track that someone can crouch in for precisely those scenarios.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

I thought the downtown stations will have a glass barrier along the platform?

Like this?

The original pie-in-the-sky plan called for the cross-country tunnel route, 180 meter centre platforms and yes, glass barriers between the platform and tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC20lJqRzgg

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Full systems? Not that I can think of - I think Ottawa's a first (and potentially a trendsetter) in that regard. However, cities like Barcelona, Nice, Seattle, The Hague and Boston all have some underground or elevated stations for their low-floor LRT.


Here's another:

Nice. Thanks for the info. makes me feel a bit better about the low floors. It might actually work out.

As everyone mentioned, we shouldn't put too much emphasis on the technology or low floor vs. high floor. Point is that this is a metro system with 98-130 meter trains and a capacity that even beats Vancouver's system (due to short 50-90 meter platforms).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Here are some metrics which I'd propose that I think would be relevant to the passengers' experience

Average total trip time (including average wait time [headway/2] and the less calculable average walk time): This metric aims to reward speed (vehicle time), but also good stop placement (walk time) and high frequencies (wait time). A super fast trip downtown means a lot less if you have to walk a kilometer on both ends and it only passes every hour.

Dependability/predictability: the maximum possible variation in trip times - things like wait times, transfer time, interference by traffic, etc. This metric rewards things like high frequencies, separation from traffic and makes the difference between good transfers (i.e. transfers between lines with low headways), bad transfers (between lines with high headways) and bad transfer mitigation (lines which go from everywhere to everywhere without a transfer, but with half or a third of the frequency). The aim is to determine how well you can predict a certain trip will take if you just show up at a station.

Simplicity: how easy is it to glance at a map and know how to get around. The Rapibus is an example of an almost comedic complexity with its looping lines and poorly indicated one-way hours. Things like the simplicity of a transfer layout can also be included here - a transfer through Paris's metro tunnel maze isn't the same as walking up a flight of stairs at Bayview.

Comfort: this includes things like capacity ("Will I get a seat or be standing in a crush-capacity train?") and frequency ("How long will I wait"), but also the quality of stations (lighting, heating, safety, etc.), the ride quality and, importantly, the walk quality - exiting a station in a parking lot beside a highway (Hello, Blair) is not at all the same as exiting on a walkable main street (future Pimisi).

So if Montreal's metro cars came above grade and ran in mixed traffic on Ste-Catherine, would it not change how you would qualify the system? If yes, then the opposite (running trams as a metro) should also be true. If no, then it's a useless technical designation completely irrelevant to how the system works or, more importantly, is used.

So if we ran rickshaws in a tunnel they would be "metro grade" rickshaws because they're being used in a similar way that subways are used?

I agree that all the criteria that you list are important for a passenger experience, and I think the Confederation Line will generally have a good passenger experience.

I'm just making the point that when comparing apples to apples (trains of similar size on a similar route) the passenger experience is better in a light metro type system, the operating costs are lower and the capacity is higher which is why most cities looking for medium capacity systems choose light metro type technologies and nobody outside of Ontario chooses tram type technologies for that purpose. The passenger experience in light metro systems (Copenhagen Metro, Docklands in London, Vancouver Skytrain, etc). is better than in an Alstom Citadis of similar size.

The city did all of this analysis several years ago. Light metro won in most categories except "ability to build a non-segregated system in low-density areas" which is at best a phase that will come in the relatively distant future and at worse is not even technically feasible (I seriously doubt the downtown stations will have the capacity to support multiple lines to low density areas - remember the length (and I think width) of the platforms was reduced as a cost-saving measure after the tram technology was chosen. The report is here:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...0017%20-%20Rail%20System%20Selection.htm

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by TMA-1

Then and now. There was so much difference in the right side of the frame I gave up and used left and bottom only.



ottawa trainyards 2008 (L) 2014 (R) by southfacing, on Flickr

Thanks for the great comparison!

All that stands between the OC Transpo bus yards and the OC Transpo train yards is Pepsi. Down with Pepsi!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So if we ran rickshaws in a tunnel they would be "metro grade" rickshaws because they're being used in a similar way that subways are used?

I agree that all the criteria that you list are important for a passenger experience, and I think the Confederation Line will generally have a good passenger experience.

I'm just making the point that when comparing apples to apples (trains of similar size on a similar route) the passenger experience is better in a light metro type system, the operating costs are lower and the capacity is higher which is why most cities looking for medium capacity systems choose light metro type technologies and nobody outside of Ontario chooses tram type technologies for that purpose. The passenger experience in light metro systems (Copenhagen Metro, Docklands in London, Vancouver Skytrain, etc). is better than in an Alstom Citadis of similar size.

The city did all of this analysis several years ago. Light metro won in most categories except "ability to build a non-segregated system in low-density areas" which is at best a phase that will come in the relatively distant future and at worse is not even technically feasible (I seriously doubt the downtown stations will have the capacity to support multiple lines to low density areas - remember the length (and I think width) of the platforms was reduced as a cost-saving measure after the tram technology was chosen. The report is here:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...0017%20-%20Rail%20System%20Selection.htm

First of all, you are comparing what we are doing with some other specific metro systems. How much of those systems run at grade? This is very important. A good portion of our plan will be running at grade and this will keep costs under control. If we are talking about true metros, we need to have them almost entirely elevated or tunneled as is the case with the Skytrain and Canada Line. Only a very short distance of the Canada Line is at grade near the airport and that short distance has high security fences.

If we want to build out rail rapid transit eventually to serve as much of the city as possible as has happened in Calgary, metros become a much more expensive solution.

Also, what we are building today is designed to handle all the passenger traffic going through downtown for the next 50 years. Extending the line further into the suburbs makes no difference, other than delivering better service. We are already proposing multiple lines with the Baseline/Bayshore branching, so it would make sense to have a similar branch in the east end eventually. I don't think anybody is suggesting 5 or 10 branches but many systems such as BART in San Francisco have multiple branches served by one downtown tunnel.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So if we ran rickshaws in a tunnel they would be "metro grade" rickshaws because they're being used in a similar way that subways are used?

Hey, if your rickshaws operate with speeds, capacity and comfort comparable to a metro, I don't see why not! What is a subway but several hundred rickshaws attached to each other on steel wheels and 'run' with electric motors?

I'm just making the point that when comparing apples to apples (trains of similar size on a similar route) the passenger experience is better in a light metro type system, the operating costs are lower and the capacity is higher which is why most cities looking for medium capacity systems choose light metro type technologies and nobody outside of Ontario chooses tram type technologies for that purpose. The passenger experience in light metro systems (Copenhagen Metro, Docklands in London, Vancouver Skytrain, etc). is better than in an Alstom Citadis of similar size.

Again, debatable. The Canada Line (10 000 pphpd, including future platform extensions), DLR (15 000) and Copenhagen Metro (11 000) have a much lower maximum capacity than the Confederation Line (26 000). The Canada Line is smooth as butter, but DLR struggles with some of its tight curves. I'll take your word on the operating costs, but that isn't immediately relevant to passengers.

My point isn't to say that LRT is somehow better than anything else. My point is that these technical categories (LRT, Light Metro, Heavy Rail, S-Bahn...) are not the most relevant aspects of a system. Saying something is a light metro or LRT doesn't necessarily give me any relevant information as to the capacity, comfort, frequency, reliability (etc.) of the system - only very technical info which may appeal to us transit geeks. But for everyone else, it provides no information at best and at worst, it misrepresents the system by appealing to certain archetypes (LRT = low frequencies, slow, in traffic, etc.).
That's why I refer to the Confederation Line as a metro; a metro designates a high-capacity, low-headway, grade-separated system - all criteria relevant to the passengers' experience. This is what matters.

[lrt's friend]

I will make a further comment about cost control. Surely we don't want to elevate a metro (or insert it in a chain link cage) from Blair Road to Jeanne D'Arc in Phase 2. Building LRT on the surface on this section crossing the Greenbelt makes a whole load of sense. We also have to think of this for eventual extensions across the Greenbelt to Kanata and Barrhaven. Bayshore and Baseline are not going to be the permanent final terminuses.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will make a further comment about cost control. Surely we don't want to elevate a metro (or insert it in a chain link cage) from Blair Road to Jeanne D'Arc in Phase 2. Building LRT on the surface on this section crossing the Greenbelt makes a whole load of sense. We also have to think of this for eventual extensions across the Greenbelt to Kanata and Barrhaven. Bayshore and Baseline are not going to be the permanent final terminuses.

Running at grade isn't at issue, it's level crossings. Grade separation can mean that the train runs at grade but things crossing it are elevated or tunnelled. As for any extensions currently identified in the TMP, all the crossings are grade separated. I don't even see any case, if the Confederation Line is further extended into Kanata, Barrhaven or Orleans, where grade separation would be overly costly, impractical or difficult to mitigate. The Trillium line is another matter.

[ACmodels]

It seems like all the Confederation line will be grade separated according to Map 3 Rapid Transit and Transit Priority Network – Ultimate Network in the TMP it looks like when it does get extended to Kanata and Barrhaven it may all be grade separated! But the Trillium Line looks like between Bowesville Station and and 200 meters west of Limebank road (Riverside town center or Main Street) would be At Grade, so there would be level crossings at Limebank road and Earl Armstrong road. IN CONCLUSION the Confederation Line IS a Metro! But the Trillium Line ONCE it gets electrified its just going to be a plain LRT between Bowesville and RTC (main street) once it gets passed Bowesville heading up to Bayview then its a Metro. So now I am done THANK YOU

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for the great comparison!

All that stands between the OC Transpo bus yards and the OC Transpo train yards is Pepsi. Down with Pepsi!

Ye thats what I think too... we should kick them out do OC-Transpo would own that whole area...maybe OC can use it to bottle there own kind of Pepsi...LOL

[emannigol]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

It seems like all the Confederation line will be grade separated according to Map 3 Rapid Transit and Transit Priority Network – Ultimate Network in the TMP

You need to go down to map 5, the "affordable network" to see what we're actually getting. The ultimate network you were looking at is what they would do if they had more $$$.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planning-a...-master-plans/transportation-master-plan

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by emannigol

You need to go down to map 5, the "affordable network" to see what we're actually getting. The ultimate network you were looking at is what they would do if they had more $$$.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/planning-a...-master-plans/transportation-master-plan

Ye i know but i was thinking long term. In short term that is questionable with the western lrt with rodchester field and all of that fun stuff....... I also have another argument why its a metro. But I will do it later......