Airport Rail Link

[MoreTrains]

11.12

The proposed Airport Parkway and Lester Road realignments should be built before the rail, to minimize construction delays along the rail line and promote adjacent development as envisioned by the Airport. An interim diesel line could then be built along the existing Airport Parkway. The ultimate rail line adjacent to the realigned Airport Parkway can be built after electrification, which would eliminate the need for grade separations and preserve the continuity of the road network.

1

The City intends to extend rail in advance of the road as an incentive for transit use. An interim diesel line would also require grade separations at Uplands and the Airport Parkway and would not make effective use of the existing rail corridor.

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-consultations/transit/what-we-heard-comment-summary

So clearly the representative giving the reply did not understand the reccomendation. Richard Eade's plan from above should have been printed and submitted to avoid the confusion as to what 'running the DMU along the current parkway' means. Such fools we have.

[Richard Eade]

There should not have been confusion as City Staff was given many pages of comments and suggestions. Staff was also capable of asking me for any clarification that they might have needed. Perhaps any confusion comes from the brief wording of their reply. My interpretation of it is that they are hoping that Council will approve the Trillium Line extension to be built before any road work around the airport is required. This includes the widening of the Airport Parkway (south of Hunt Club Road) and Lester Road; including the re-alignment of Lester Road. Their fear, I believe, is that widening and re-aligning roads will make it easier for people south of the airport to use their cars; thus reducing the incentive to take public transit. I think that everyone on this forum can agree that building good public transit and encouraging its use should be paramount to providing easier car routes.

My proposal that Lester Road and the Parkway be re-aligned before the new tracks were laid was seen as counter to encouraging transit use on the new rail extension. And they are probably correct, since re-aligning Lester would make it easier to drive – even if Lester and the Parkway were reconstructed as two-lane roadways (with provision for twinning, when needed).

Staff is also right in saying that I have not made optimal use of the existing rail corridor, since I suggested that the new tracks be pulled west, onto the Airport Lands. Since the freight line will remain where it is, it would be more efficient to bundle all of the tracks in the same right of way. You need to keep in mind that my premise was based on electric trains going south to Bowesville so I did not need over/underpasses for that line. Staff has determined that electric trains should not be used so they are dealing with the grade separation requirements of diesel trains. This means that additional over/underpasses could be required; thus there may be little benefit in not running all of the tracks in the existing corridor.

I trust that Staff has looked over all of the comments received and is looking into incorporating any suggestions that improve their initial proposal. I don’t suppose for a minute that it was an easy task to filter through all of the often contradictory ideas. I am glad to see that they included comment 21.4, as it shows that at least someone was able to keep their sense of humour during the process.

[ACmodels]

Airport to pitch in for light rail link
CEO offers $35 million for airport transit station

Orleans News
By Emma Jackson
2015-06-29

Councillors around the finance committee table were downright delighted – and perhaps a bit surprised – when the Ottawa International Airport Authority’s CEO showed up with an offer to pitch in for a light rail link to the airport.

Mark Laroche told the committee on June 29 he is willing to invest about $35 million to install a transit station at the airport if the city goes ahead with the rail spur as part of its stage two light rail plans.

“We believe we must have a world class transportation system that is inter-modal, reliable, convenient and efficient,” Laroche said. To that end, funding for an airport station “fits the kind of infrastructure spending that is allowable, so we are prepared to proceed in that direction.”

He said Transport Canada regulations limit him from investing in mass transit projects, so he’s not able to put up any money for the tracks themselves.

But incorporating a rail station into his upcoming terminal expansion plans to redo the check-in and security areas would be a perfect way for the airport to get involved.

“If we know what’s coming we can engineer that flow-through and make it much more convenient,” he said.

The airport link is supposed to cost about $155 million if it’s built between 2018 and 2023 in conjunction with the Trillium O-Train extension to Riverside South.

But it’s not part of the city’s approved “affordability network” laid out in the 2013 Transportation Master Plan, so if the link is going to get built, it’s going to have to get funding from another level of government.

Laroche said he’s happy to help the city make that happen, if it means his airport can be connected to a modern light rail network that will help him increase the city’s economic viability – and therefore the number of passengers moving through his terminal.

“You typically have only one shot,” Laroche said. “If you don’t get it done at the same time as the Trillium line extension, it’s unlikely that it will get done. We are loathe to let that happen.”

The announcement came as the finance and economic committee considered functional designs for three light rail expansions as part of the city’s $3 billion, 30-kilometre stage two package: west to Bayshore and Baseline stations, east to Place D’Orléans and south to Bowesville Road.

Those three projects are all approved in principle, and only a lack of provincial and federal funding can derail them now.
But staff also included full functional designs and cost estimates for the rail spur and another $160 million extension to Trim Line in the east end in the hopes that provincial and federal funding will allow them to get built, too.

Councillors expressed some surprise at the airport authority’s offer; Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans implied that level of co-operation was perhaps missing from previous meetings on the issue.

“I was just delighted to hear Mr. Laroche say the airport is ready and willing to be a partner in the advancement of rapid transit to the airport,” Deans said. “I think that’s really significant for the future of our city.”

Watson also wasted no time welcoming Laroche to the table.

“We were very pleasantly surprised by the president of the airport, who came to the table very much in the spirit of co-operation to indicate that he wants to have skin in the game,” Watson said. “We very much look forward to working with the airport to put a link to the airport in the southern route.”

The stage two functional designs will be considered for final approval at council on July 8.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/5701460-airport-to-pitch-in-for-light-rail-link/

[J.OT13]

Good to see the airport is ready to contribute to get in on the deal. Though I still don't understand how they seem to have no issues with the fact that the airport link won't connect downtown.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Good to see the airport is ready to contribute to get in on the deal. Though I still don't understand how they seem to have no issues with the fact that the airport link won't connect downtown.

It will certainly connect to downtown... it just won't be without a transfer.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

It will certainly connect to downtown... it just won't be without a transfer.

or two transfers.

No sweat, everybody loves to haul luggage across multiple platforms.

And we won't have to worry about comments like the following from a Hawaiian visitor to Vancouver regarding the Canada Line between the airport and downtown:

The vancouver rail is very successful and widely used. I love taking it from the airport to downtown for only a couple bucks

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29403...lems-prompt-hart-officials-to-plan-ahead

It is quite ironic how the article explains that this is the once in a lifetime opportunity to extend rail to the airport. This is also so true with respect to double tracking the Trillium line when we passed on that opportunity in 2006. It will not happen in my lifetime.

[FFX-ME]

Yea. It seems that the logical choice for 'phase 3' would not be to expand to Kanata or Montreal rd/Carling but instead double-track the Trillium line so it can have a higher frequency and be interlined with the confederation line.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

or two transfers.

No sweat, everybody loves to haul luggage across multiple platforms.

Or actually 9;
- Airplane to the gate
- gate to the elevator
- elevator to Arrivals
- Arrivals to elevator
- Elevator to Trillium line
- Trillium line to Bayview elevator
- Elevator to Confederation line
- Confederation line to elevator
- Elevator to the street

Plus an additional transfer to get to the hotel room probably!

In all seriousness though, it really is just one extra elevator ride.

It is quite ironic how the article explains that this is the once in a lifetime opportunity to extend rail to the airport. This is also so true with respect to double tracking the Trillium line when we passed on that opportunity in 2006. It will not happen in my lifetime.

I'm sorry - I couldn't help it!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Or actually 9;
- Airplane to the gate
- gate to the elevator
- elevator to Arrivals
- Arrivals to elevator
- Elevator to Trillium line
- Trillium line to Bayview elevator
- Elevator to Confederation line
- Confederation line to elevator
- Elevator to the street

Plus an additional transfer to get to the hotel room probably!

In all seriousness though, it really is just one extra elevator ride

I'm sorry - I couldn't help it!

Good point. In my experience as long as the transfer is to another train, and not a bus or long walk it will work.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Good point. In my experience as long as the transfer is to another train, and not a bus or long walk it will work.

To be honest, we're talking maybe a dozen or two travelers per day using the link.
The vast majority of users to the airport will be people working at the airport. And at that, we're again talking a few dozen per day.

I'm all for a rail link. I'd bet money though that the number of people it serves will be minimal.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

To be honest, we're talking maybe a dozen or two travelers per day using the link.
The vast majority of users to the airport will be people working at the airport. And at that, we're again talking a few dozen per day.

I'm all for a rail link. I'd bet money though that the number of people it serves will be minimal.

Ridership is hard to predict, but should certainly be well above that level. The bus already serves more than that some hours.

I would think it could do very well with travellers near a LRT station, those staying in downtown hotels, and even some business travellers from centre town.

[silvergate]

I have the solution! Let's build a hotel at Bayview :O

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Yea. It seems that the logical choice for 'phase 3' would not be to expand to Kanata or Montreal rd/Carling but instead double-track the Trillium line so it can have a higher frequency and be interlined with the confederation line.

I don't think a manually operated diesel train and a mostly automated electric tram could run on the same track.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I have the solution! Let's build a hotel at Bayview :O

Somehow Trinity Group has not mentioned a hotel in their development at Bayview.... Retail/Office/Residential so far.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I don't think a manually operated diesel train and a mostly automated electric tram could run on the same track.

Nope, they can't. A lot more work than just double tracking needs to be done on Trillium for interlining.

In any case, interlining is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued. It leads to operational constraints and ultimately disadvantages a majority (by requiring reduced frequencies for service to Bayshore & Baseline) to advantage a minority (removing a simple transfer at Bayview).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Or actually 9;
- Airplane to the gate
- gate to the elevator
- elevator to Arrivals
- Arrivals to elevator
- Elevator to Trillium line
- Trillium line to Bayview elevator
- Elevator to Confederation line
- Confederation line to elevator
- Elevator to the street

Plus an additional transfer to get to the hotel room probably!

In all seriousness though, it really is just one extra elevator ride.





I'm sorry - I couldn't help it!

My point was that there will often be a second transfer at South Keys as well. This is the current plan.

I have no objections to doing this but we are potentially adding $100M to the city costs. Where is the cost/benefit analysis? There is none. Perhaps it is something that has to be done now or never but the system will have limited value as long as it requires all these transfers. What we are proposing is no Canada Line and no UPX either and is not what is proposed for the future airport connection in Montreal. What Ottawa builds always seems to be second rate, Confederation Line excepted.

When the whole discussion about the tunnel started, everybody commented on the need to do the central part of the system correctly and build out afterwards. We are doing that, for the Confederation Line.

With the Trillium Line, this all goes out the window. Build out without getting the central part of the route up to an appropriate standard ie. double tracking. As I have pointed out, we missed the boat in 2006 and the Trillium Line will remain a patched up mess for decades to come. It isn't sour grapes. It is a statement of fact.

The plan is flawed and it deserves to be pointed out.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Nope, they can't. A lot more work than just double tracking needs to be done on Trillium for interlining.

In any case, interlining is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued. It leads to operational constraints and ultimately disadvantages a majority (by requiring reduced frequencies for service to Bayshore & Baseline) to advantage a minority (removing a simple transfer at Bayview).

Sounds like a double standard to me. The western extension already proposes interlining of two separate routes. Why is that OK? But that is a different story, isn't it?

By the same logic, there should be transfers at Lincoln Fields either from Bayshore or Baseline with one of the branches providing only a shuttle service.

I will wait for the excuses on how this is different.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sounds like a double standard to me. The western extension already proposes interlining of two separate routes. Why is that OK? But that is a different story, isn't it?

By the same logic, there should be transfers at Lincoln Fields either from Bayshore or Baseline with one of the branches providing only a shuttle service.

I will wait for the excuses on how this is different.

Simple. Number of branches.

Interlining always creates a trade-off: less transfers, but lower frequency. If you have, say, 10 branches sharing the same track, each of those 10 branches has to have very low frequency. The number of branches you can have depends on how low you want frequencies to go.

Having branches from Bayshore & Baseline means two branches east of LF. That means each branch can have 4 minute frequency. That's fine.

Adding a third branch for Trillium reduces the possible frequency for Bayshore & Baseline to 6 minutes.

The Bayshore & Baseline branches will carry far more people because of how close Bayview is to downtown. Sacrificing the frequency of the Bayshore & Baseline branches to allow for direct Trillium line service into the CBD will cause a lot more harm (reduced frequency for a relatively large number of people), than good (reduced transfers for a relatively small number of people).

As for the "double standard", it's different. Because Bayshore & Baseline are roughly the same demand (both are major destinations in their own right, and also serving as transfer points to two large suburban areas of roughly equal size), it makes sense to equalize them with equivalent frequencies and directness.

[1overcosc]

More to visualize this. Say we have a hypothetical Trillium line conversion to electric LRT, such that interlining becomes technologically possible.

Hard to say what the frequencies on that route would be; but let's say 5 minutes.

With a transfer at Bayview, we have:
-Bayshore service running at 4 minutes
-Baseline service running at 4 minutes
-Combined service of two above branches east of LF running at 2 minutes
-Trillium service running at 5 minutes, terminating at Bayview

A trip from Greenboro to Rideau would entail:
-Average wait of 2.5 minutes at Greenboro
-Average wait of 1 minute for transfer at Bayview
So an average of 3.5 minutes of non-travel time.

A trip from Bayshore/Baseline would entail:
-Average wait of 2 minutes at Bayshore/Baseline
So an average wait of 2 minutes of non-travel time.

Now, let's say we did interlining instead. That would require headways of at least 6 minutes on each of the three branches.

This results in:
-Bayshore service running at 6 minutes
-Baseline service running at 6 minutes
-Trillium service running at 6 minutes
-Combined service of three above branches east of Bayview running at 2 minutes

A trip from Greenboro to Rideau would entail:
-Average wait of 3 minutes at Greenboro
So an average of 3 minutes of non-travel time

A trip from Bayshore/Baseline to Rideau would entail:
-Average wait of 3 minutes at Bayshore/Baseline
So an average wait of 3 minutes of non-travel time.

So interlining of Trillium saves Greenboro passengers 30 seconds, but costs Bayshore/Baseline passengers 60 seconds.

Overall it adds more travel time than it removes. This is even more significant as Bayshore/Baseline passengers will be more numerous as the west has more people than the south.

So, even if we double track Trillium to remove frequency constraints and electrify it to reduce travel time (both of which I support), it still makes sense to have it terminate at Bayview instead of interlining it downtown.

[eemy]

Additionally, the service between Lincoln Fields and Bayview would have an irregular schedule with headways alternating between 2 and 4 minutes. If they want to have service directly downtown, I think they should extend the O-Train via a slightly different surface route - perhaps Laurier. I think the transfer is really a non-issue with the high frequency service on the Confederation Line. Toronto tried interlining the Bloor-Danforth line onto the Yonge-University line, and they ended up switching back to the service they have now requiring a transfer to reach downtown.