Airport Rail Link

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

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.

Some downtown streets, especially west of Bank, would need to be closed to allow for a surface route, as the blocks are too short. Also a street would have to be completely closed to regular traffic, since no downtown street has a ROW wide enough to accommodate the turning movements and LRT.

Also look to the north of Bayview...a major trip generator - the region's 2nd largest employment area - lies very close to the rail corridor (downtown Gatineau, and tracks run right to across from Terrasses de la Chaudiere). Turning the Trillium Line towards downtown closes that option. Yes, the bridge would need major reconstruction, but that door should certainly be left open. Having the 2nd and 4th largest employment areas (downtown Gatineau, Confederation/Carleton) connected directly would be very advantageous as well.

[lrt's friend]

As I have said, it is simply excuses and a double standard. Carleton University is a bigger trip generator than either Baseline (Algonquin College) or Bayshore and the Trillium Line corridor will have a bigger population base than either Baseline or Bayshore branches in the mid and long-term. Aren't we going to have a population explosion in Little Italy, let alone the southern suburbs? The idea of extending service to downtown Hull is fantasyland. There is absolutely no incentive for Ottawa City Council to extend service into Quebec with all the complications that this entails. The real need is to connect the City of Gatineau as a whole to the network but we all know that this won't work based on a transfer mega station at Bayview that will quickly be overwhelmed. Recreating the Bloor-Yonge transfer is not something that we should be planning for. The issues that exist on the Yonge line and at the Bloor-Yonge transfer are driving so many of the arguments against various transit expansions in Toronto and demands for a new downtown subway (the DRL).

We talk about split service. It doesn't seem to me that 6 minute frequency on a triple branched line is bad. And what are we proposing? That is my other point about the failure to build the central part of the Trillium Line properly. 6 minute frequency doubles what we have today and what we are likely able to achieve in the future. So, how can we say that what we are planning is better? It isn't.

And the next question, we are now proposing two car Trillium Line trains meeting two car Confederation Line trains at Bayview. How can this possibly work without leaving people on the platform? It is a problem waiting to happen. The one or two minute wait times is a fiction. At that point, the solution becomes the need of extra trains having to start at Bayview to meet the needs of transferring passengers from the Trillium Line every 12 minutes, and if that happens, then why not interline?

[lrt's friend]

Yes, recreating the Bloor-Yonge transfer is a good example for Ottawa to follow



https://amirtabarlegal.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/125385844_5140404ede_z.jpg

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is absolutely no incentive for Ottawa City Council to extend service into Quebec with all the complications that this entails. The real need is to connect the City of Gatineau as a whole to the network but we all know that this won't work based on a transfer mega station at Bayview that will quickly be overwhelmed.

Have you seen the bridges at 4:30 on a weekday? It's not pretty. Now is the time to start talking about a legitimate regional strategy for transit. A lot of the insane rush hour traffic running through places like Westboro/West Welli and eventually Lebreton could be mitigated with some actual coordination between the two cities.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I have said, it is simply excuses and a double standard. Carleton University is a bigger trip generator than either Baseline (Algonquin College) or Bayshore and the Trillium Line corridor will have a bigger population base than either Baseline or Bayshore branches in the mid and long-term.

Absolutely not true. Kanata, Nepean, and Barrhaven combined have way more people than Riverside South & South Keys ever will. The effect is magnified by the fact that the Southeast Transitway takes a huge chunk of that area's transit load and will continue to do so.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We talk about split service. It doesn't seem to me that 6 minute frequency on a triple branched line is bad. And what are we proposing? That is my other point about the failure to build the central part of the Trillium Line properly. 6 minute frequency doubles what we have today and what we are likely able to achieve in the future. So, how can we say that what we are planning is better? It isn't.

Read my original post again. I was comparing to a hypothetical electric LRT on the Trillium Line (in which frequency restrictions are removed) to note why interlining is a bad idea even if technologically possible.. I was NOT using the present diesel line as the point of comparison (in which the point is completely moot as it is not technologically possible).

You seem to have completely ignored my point about how a Trillium interline would require Bayshore/Baseline frequencies to be cut by 33%. That's too big a sacrifice to make just for the south end to avoid a quick transfer. In the big picture, the south end is a far more minor part of the city than the west end.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And the next question, we are now proposing two car Trillium Line trains meeting two car Confederation Line trains at Bayview. How can this possibly work without leaving people on the platform? It is a problem waiting to happen. The one or two minute wait times is a fiction.

With two car Trillium Line trains, it will likely take two Confederation Line trains (first absorbs most leaving some waiting, second absorbs all) to absorb all the Trillium inflow traffic at the peak of rush hour... if all traffic was bound for the core. However, remember that Bayview is a T junction and Trillium passengers will be moving both east and west.. in fact, most of the Trillium Line's traffic goes to/from the west, not the CBD/east. Yet another reason why interlining is a bad idea!

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At that point, the solution becomes the need of extra trains having to start at Bayview to meet the needs of transferring passengers from the Trillium Line every 12 minutes, and if that happens, then why not interline?

We'll not have to have extra trains start at Bayview for them... Trillium loads won't be even close to that high.

In any scenario in which interlining becomes technologically possible, frequencies will be higher than 12 minutes. The current 12 minute frequency (actually 10 apparently) is a technological limitation that would be resolved BEFORE any interlining could even happen.

Also, think about it. If capacity becomes crunched, interlining will not solve the problem. If trains from Bayshore/Baseline are so crowded that they can't take incoming Trillium Line transfer traffic, then that means Bayshore/Baseline trains are also too crowded to have their frequency cut to accommodate Trillium trains.

Toronto's Bloor-Yonge problem would not be solved by having Bloor trains interline down Yonge. Neither would be a hypothetical future Bayview problem be solved by Trillium trains interlining down Confederation.

A Bayview capacity crunch, if it ever happens, would have as its sole solution the increasing of capacity through technological improvements like ATC, and/or an entirely second corridor into the CBD.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Absolutely not true. Kanata, Nepean, and Barrhaven combined have way more people than Riverside South & South Keys ever will. The effect is magnified by the fact that the Southeast Transitway takes a huge chunk of that area's transit load and will continue to do so.



Read my original post again. I was comparing to a hypothetical electric LRT on the Trillium Line (in which frequency restrictions are removed) to note why interlining is a bad idea even if technologically possible.. I was NOT using the present diesel line as the point of comparison (in which the point is completely moot as it is not technologically possible).

You seem to have completely ignored my point about how a Trillium interline would require Bayshore/Baseline frequencies to be cut by 33%. That's too big a sacrifice to make just for the south end to avoid a quick transfer. In the big picture, the south end is a far more minor part of the city than the west end.



With two car Trillium Line trains, it will likely take two Confederation Line trains (first absorbs most leaving some waiting, second absorbs all) to absorb all the Trillium inflow traffic at the peak of rush hour... if all traffic was bound for the core. However, remember that Bayview is a T junction and Trillium passengers will be moving both east and west.. in fact, most of the Trillium Line's traffic goes to/from the west, not the CBD/east. Yet another reason why interlining is a bad idea!



We'll not have to have extra trains start at Bayview for them... Trillium loads won't be even close to that high.

In any scenario in which interlining becomes technologically possible, frequencies will be higher than 12 minutes. The current 12 minute frequency (actually 10 apparently) is a technological limitation that would be resolved BEFORE any interlining could even happen.

Also, think about it. If capacity becomes crunched, interlining will not solve the problem. If trains from Bayshore/Baseline are so crowded that they can't take incoming Trillium Line transfer traffic, then that means Bayshore/Baseline trains are also too crowded to have their frequency cut to accommodate Trillium trains.

Toronto's Bloor-Yonge problem would not be solved by having Bloor trains interline down Yonge. Neither would be a hypothetical future Bayview problem be solved by Trillium trains interlining down Confederation.

A Bayview capacity crunch, if it ever happens, would have as its sole solution the increasing of capacity through technological improvements like ATC, and/or an entirely second corridor into the CBD.

As for a capacity crunch at the Bayview transfer for passengers going downtown, remember also that a sizable number of passengers from the west are getting off at Tunney's Pasture (mostly as a destination, a few to transfer). That creates additional train capacity at Bayview heading east that would not be there otherwise.

Interestingly, for those who take express buses from the east and work at Tunney's Pasture (or farther west although there aren't any large employers along the Transitway again until Baseline), the number of transfers actually remains the same, since most express runs end at Lebreton and a transfer is required to continue west, which offsets the transfer from a local route to the LRT.

[lrt's friend]

As it presently stands, not much traffic from the Trillium Line goes downtown at Bayview. I fully agree. This is because the Trillium Line is not competitive with the Southeast Transitway for delivering people downtown. But this is about to change. Overall transit demand is higher towards downtown than anywhere else and an extension of the Trillium Line will start reflecting a shift in ridership demand. We are also building big towers in Little Italy and more will want to go downtown than to Westboro or Tunney's. Once we extend the Trillium Line to Riverside South and the airport and end Route 97 and 99 to those locations, the Southeast Transitway will automatically lose its advantage for many people. Also, with ending of direct service to downtown on the Southeast Transitway will automatically end some of its advantage. And with the opening of the bridge to Barrhaven, we are giving residents there an alternate route towards downtown as well.

My comment about Bloor/Yonge is not about so much about interlining as the capacity issue in general. The Toronto situation is not the same really. People have more choices in Toronto, of going north, south or straight through and two subway routes into downtown yet there is still a mess. With Bayview, there is only two choices, east and west. Right now, west takes the majority of the passengers but this is going to switch to eastbound with the planned extension.

Furthermore, the Bloor-Danforth subway has high frequency and therefore can spread the transfer traffic better than what will happen with the Trillium Line at Bayview with only 12 minute frequency. So, how do you properly balance traffic on the Confederation Line with a sudden glut of extra passengers every 12 minutes? There is going to be an impact that will cause problems as soon as you convince or force more people to use the Trillium Line to travel downtown.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As it presently stands, not much traffic from the Trillium Line goes downtown at Bayview. I fully agree. This is because the Trillium Line is not competitive with the Southeast Transitway for delivering people downtown. But this is about to change. Overall transit demand is higher towards downtown than anywhere else and an extension of the Trillium Line will start reflecting a shift in ridership demand. We are also building big towers in Little Italy and more will want to go downtown than to Westboro or Tunney's. Once we extend the Trillium Line to Riverside South and the airport and end Route 97 and 99 to those locations, the Southeast Transitway will automatically lose its advantage for many people. Also, with ending of direct service to downtown on the Southeast Transitway will automatically end some of its advantage. And with the opening of the bridge to Barrhaven, we are giving residents there an alternate route towards downtown as well.

I'm not too convinced that the Southeast Transitway will suddenly lose its popularity. Many of the routes from the southeast go to Hurdman. Furthermore, I don't see the loss of direct service hurting the competiveness of the SE Transitway, especially as the Trillium Line will require a transfer anyway. For Barrhaven, it's still faster for buses to be routed to Baseline even when the Trillium line reaches Bowesville.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My comment about Bloor/Yonge is not about so much about interlining as the capacity issue in general. The Toronto situation is not the same really. People have more choices in Toronto, of going north, south or straight through and two subway routes into downtown yet there is still a mess. With Bayview, there is only two choices, east and west. Right now, west takes the majority of the passengers but this is going to switch to eastbound with the planned extension.

Furthermore, the Bloor-Danforth subway has high frequency and therefore can spread the transfer traffic better than what will happen with the Trillium Line at Bayview with only 12 minute frequency. So, how do you properly balance traffic on the Confederation Line with a sudden glut of extra passengers every 12 minutes? There is going to be an impact that will cause problems as soon as you convince or force more people to use the Trillium Line to travel downtown.

Math time.

Say the Trillium line is fully loaded arriving at Bayview, and half its ridership is transferring east. That means 260 passengers will be waiting to board at Bayview. A single Confederation Line train can fit 600 passengers, 740 once platforms are extended. Platform extension is planned and budgeted within the current TMP, before 2031. Meaning, that in order for a single train to load a Trillium line load, the eastbound train would have to be no more than 65% full at Bayview.

Opening day ridership on the Confederation Line is expected to be 10,700 passengers; suppose that grows by 50% by 2031 (a generous estimate; that means ridership would have to grow three times faster than the city's overall population for 13 years straight), that means ridership of about 16,000 by 2031.

Assuming a train every 2 minutes, with 740 passenger trains, that's total capacity of 22,200.

Meaning in 2031, assuming my generous ridership growth scenario, the Confederation Line will be 72% full. That 72% includes present Trillium riders escalated upwards by 50%. Considering that, and the fact that there will be a lot of riders getting off at Tunney's, we should be good.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

As for a capacity crunch at the Bayview transfer for passengers going downtown, remember also that a sizable number of passengers from the west are getting off at Tunney's Pasture (mostly as a destination, a few to transfer). That creates additional train capacity at Bayview heading east that would not be there otherwise.

Interestingly, for those who take express buses from the east and work at Tunney's Pasture (or farther west although there aren't any large employers along the Transitway again until Baseline), the number of transfers actually remains the same, since most express runs end at Lebreton and a transfer is required to continue west, which offsets the transfer from a local route to the LRT.

Not true if you are using an express and going past the Tunney's terminus. With an express, you transfer once to get beyond Tunney's. With the new setup, you transfer twice.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not too convinced that the Southeast Transitway will suddenly lose its popularity. Many of the routes from the southeast go to Hurdman. Furthermore, I don't see the loss of direct service hurting the competiveness of the SE Transitway, especially as the Trillium Line will require a transfer anyway. For Barrhaven, it's still faster for buses to be routed to Baseline even when the Trillium line reaches Bowesville.



Math time.

Say the Trillium line is fully loaded arriving at Bayview, and half its ridership is transferring east. That means 260 passengers will be waiting to board at Bayview. A single Confederation Line train can fit 600 passengers, 740 once platforms are extended. Platform extension is planned and budgeted within the current TMP, before 2031. Meaning, that in order for a single train to load a Trillium line load, the eastbound train would have to be no more than 65% full at Bayview.

Opening day ridership on the Confederation Line is expected to be 10,700 passengers; suppose that grows by 50% by 2031 (a generous estimate; that means ridership would have to grow three times faster than the city's overall population for 13 years straight), that means ridership of about 16,000 by 2031.

Assuming a train every 2 minutes, with 740 passenger trains, that's total capacity of 22,200.

Meaning in 2031, assuming my generous ridership growth scenario, the Confederation Line will be 72% full. That 72% includes present Trillium riders. Considering that, and the fact that there will be a lot of riders getting off at Tunney's, we should be good. Although we'll be cutting close.. meaning that it's likely that within 20-30 years the city will have to increase the Trillium's line's frequency to spread its loads around.

The initial plan calls for trains every 3 minutes and 15 seconds, not every 2 minutes.

And you can bet that buying extra trains or extending them to maximum length will only occur once the public is complaining loudly about capacity issues. It is not a cheap proposition to purchase extra trains and will platforms be built to handle maximum length trains? If not, another major expense. Running trains is extremely expensive and its not like throwing on an extra bus when needed. It is not that simple.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not true if you are using an express and going past the Tunney's terminus. With an express, you transfer once to get beyond Tunney's. With the new setup, you transfer twice.

?

Right now, from Orleans, Tunney's is 1 transfer--express to Lebreton, then transfer to 95 or whatever to Tunney's.

Post Confederation Line, it is also 1 transfer--local to Blair, then transfer to Confederation Line straight to Tunney's.

Same applies as far west as Baseline post Phase 2.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The initial plan calls for trains every 3 minutes and 15 seconds, not every 2 minutes.

In 2018, yes. I'm talking about after Phase 2 is complete. (I'm pretty sure it's actually 3 minutes flat in 2018.)

The Confederation Line will start with a capacity of 12,000 per hour and scale up to 22,200 as demand requires. It can scale beyond that to 28,120 if the city upgrades to ATC (which is roughed in). The ATC upgrade is not budgeted for in the current planning horizon (by contrast, the other upgrades allowing a climb to 22,200--platform extension on surface stations, increasing frequencies to 30tph--are budgeted and planned to occur prior to 2031), so I left it out of the Trillium Line analysis.

[lrt's friend]

My main two points stand. Building extensions to the Trillium Line and particularly the airport spur without properly double tracking the central part of the route is going to be problematic. Likewise, the Bayview transfer will not be as smooth as advertised. I expect that trains will run at 80 to 90% capacity during peak periods and uneven demand at Bayview will eventually cause some trains to run over 100% capacity and this is most likely to happen with the arrival of each Trillium Line train. This is my next prediction. My last two predictions, that the Carling LRT would be cancelled (correct) and much of the western extension would have to be buried (also correct).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And you can bet that buying extra trains or extending them to maximum length will only occur once the public is complaining loudly about capacity issues.

Is that how it works? Coz, boy, there are a bunch of trunk bus lines I'd like to see this principle applied to.

Any idea how loudly you have to complain?

Or does it only work if you're a suburbanite or live in a gentrified part of the old city?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is not a cheap proposition to purchase extra trains and will platforms be built to handle maximum length trains?

Yes, platforms will be built to handle 120m trains. The downtown stations will be built that way from the very start (resulting in a lot of dead space on the platform in the beginning when only 90m trains are running), the surface stations will have that extra space protected for. If I'm not mistaken, the city has actually already paid for the longer platforms as part of the O&M portion of the contract with RTG.

If not, another major expense. Running trains is extremely expensive and its not like throwing on an extra bus when needed. It is not that simple.

? Trains are cheaper to operate than buses. Hence why the Transitway->LRT conversion is going to be saving the city so much money... $18M/year, in fact, with Phase 1. That $18M is derived from the cost of assuming that every single bus route running any of the distance between Tunney's and Blair is truncated to Tunney's and/or Blair, and by comparing the operating cost of the Confederation Line with the operating cost of those bus service hours removed. (The "$100 million" we commonly heard in the O'Brien era was based on reduced cost growth to meet demand--with trains, costs don't grow as quickly as ridership grows, compared to buses).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My main two points stand. Building extensions to the Trillium Line and particularly the airport spur without properly double tracking the central part of the route is going to be problematic.

On these two points I agree. Thankfully money for the airport spur is likely not going to come. The airport authority only offered up $35M of the $155M cost. The only way it can happen at this point is if the province gives Ottawa more money than expected. (And even then, it would be competing for funds against the Trim extension and the Kanata extension that is now suddenly demanded by the west end councillors).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Likewise, the Bayview transfer will not be as smooth as advertised. I expect that trains will run at 80 to 90% capacity during peak periods and uneven demand at Bayview will eventually cause some trains to run over 100% capacity and this is most likely to happen with the arrival of each Trillium Line train.

The city can easily make the transfer at Bayview very smooth if they adequately expand capacity. The RTG contract may in fact obligate the city to do so; I'd have to read it over to be sure.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is my next prediction. My last two predictions, that the Carling LRT would be cancelled (correct) and much of the western extension would have to be buried (also correct).

The Carling LRT was never actually on, so it never really got cancelled. All it ever was is 'planned', and it's still 'planned' now. It never moved to the EA stage.

[BenTheGreat97]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

On these two points I agree. Thankfully money for the airport spur is likely not going to come. The airport authority only offered up $35M of the $155M cost. The only way it can happen at this point is if the province gives Ottawa more money than expected. (And even then, it would be competing for funds against the Trim extension and the Kanata extension that is now suddenly demanded by the west end councillors).

You think this is a good thing? The best course of action would be to double-track Trillium while extending it to Riverside South with a station at the airport. Don't give Kanata any stations yet, wait to see what the Senators decide on whether they will be moving or staying in Kanata.

If they stay, then as a 2025-2030 plan we should extend LRT down to the CTC with stations at Eagleson and just east of Centrum at the SSP-proposed Maritime Way station. If they move downtown, don't give Kanata any LRT until long-term (beyond 2030) and just optimize Kanata local service accordingly.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by BenTheGreat97

You think this is a good thing? The best course of action would be to double-track Trillium while extending it to Riverside South with a station at the airport. Don't give Kanata any stations yet, wait to see what the Senators decide on whether they will be moving or staying in Kanata.

Without double tracking, an airport spur will be a logistical disaster. Given that there seems to be no appetite within the political circles of City Hall for double tracking, it's probably best if the airport spur falls through for now.

[ACmodels]

City leaving it up to others to fund airport spur

BY JON WILLING, OTTAWA SUN
FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:12 PM EDT | UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:17 PM EDT

he city won't contribute money for a rail line to the Ottawa International Airport.

Instead, the city hopes the upper-tier governments, plus the airport authority, see the importance of a Trillium Line link to the airport of Canada's capital and fund the spur.

Mayor Jim Watson reiterated Thursday the city's commitment for the second-phase rail plan is about $1 billion, or one-third of the total $3-billion estimate.

The $3 billion is considered "affordable" under the city's transportation master plan.

The airport spur is estimated at an additional $155 million. The airport authority has said it would cover a new rail station at the airport, costing roughly $35 million.

Also on the city's wish list is an LRT extension to Trim Rd. for an extra $160 million. The affordable plan takes trains to Place d'Orléans. The city hopes the upper-tiers will also fund the Trim Rd. extension.

Watson thinks the city at least has a case for getting funding for the airport line.

In a letter to Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Watson references a $4-billion federal pot for projects of national significance and argues a rail link to the airport in Canada's capital "would be a strong candidate."

Watson sent letters to both the prime minister and Premier Kathleen Wynne officially asking for Stage 2 funding.

The mayor announced the funding request before leading a pack of photographers and reporters to a currently unused transit tunnel at Algonquin College. It will one day be used for LRT in the Stage 2 plan.

Watson said the city wants a firm response by mid-2016 to keep the project's timelines on track. The city wants to open the second phase of LRT in 2023.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

Mayor Jim Watson's letters to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Kathleen Wynne:

Letter Watson Harper Stage2LRT

https://www.scribd.com/doc/271063827/Letter-Watson-Harper-Stage2LRT

Letter Watson Wynne Stage2LRT

https://www.scribd.com/doc/271063934/Letter-Watson-Wynne-Stage2LRT




http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/07/09/city-leaving-it-up-to-others-to-fund-airport-spur

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Absolutely not true. Kanata, Nepean, and Barrhaven combined have way more people than Riverside South & South Keys ever will. The effect is magnified by the fact that the Southeast Transitway takes a huge chunk of that area's transit load and will continue to do so.

If I had it my way, I'd split the western lines not at Lincoln Fields but at Bayview itself: use the Trillium line to Confederation Heights and then on along the VIA corridor clear to Barrhaven. The western line through Westboro would continue on westwards to Bayshore and eventually Kanata. Lincoln Fields to Baseline and indeed Barrhaven could be left as a busway given that it would now be serving mainly "orbital" rather than "radial" traffic. It's a tad absurd for those from Barrhaven to be travelling along two sides of a triangle when the option of travelling along the hypotenuse exists.

The Southeast Transitway would also be converted in its own right, with an airport spur in the short term and in the longer term through-running by way of tunnels under one of the runways to get to Riverside South.

With the Southeast and Southwest lines nearly touching at Confederation Heights, building an interconnecting station there would make sense.