Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly! Fortunately none of the Stage 3 proposals have LRT extended past Bayshore. I'm not even convinced it should be extended past Lincoln Fields. Extending it beyond that will likely show down the commute of those in Kanata and Barhaven. Similarly in the east it shouldn't be extended past Montreal Rd and in the south it shouldn't be extended past the Airport.

Instead, an alternate plan to get people from the suburbs downtown is needed. The LRT is best for medium length commutes.

Like build new Transitways?

This is hilarious that we build LRT on the Transitways and then start thinking that we may end up delivering slower service because of the number stops on the way. I expressed that exact concern years ago, but it is only now that others are realizing that this may happen.

I remember in the early days of all this planning, trying to convince a city councillor that we should at least make allowances for a third set of tracks for express trains in the peak direction. Three tracks would not have been needed in the tunnel because that is the destination. Nobody took me seriously naturally and now this.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Like build new Transitways?

This is hilarious that we build LRT on the Transitways and then start thinking that we may end up delivering slower service because of the number stops on the way. I expressed that exact concern years ago, but it is only now that others are realizing that this may happen.

I remember in the early days of all this planning, trying to convince a city councillor that we should at least make allowances for a third set of tracks for express trains in the peak direction. Three tracks would not have been needed in the tunnel because that is the destination. Nobody took me seriously naturally and now this.

Given the width of the trench... any chance they can safeguard "middle" to eventually enact this excellent bit of forward thinking ??

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's 19 stops between downtown at the end of the line? I wonder what happens if people clamouring for more lrt in the suburbs actually get what they're asking for. That will be a painfully slow ride that will make people pine for the days when an express bus brought them all the way to tunneys.

I don't think that's much more stops than the current transitway, and the LRT should be able to run faster because it won't need to mix with cars getting on/off the highway or the SJAM.

[1overcosc]

Plus the LRT vehicles themselves are capable of higher speeds, and have shorter dwell times at each station than buses do (this is very dramatic at stations like Hurdman where buses take forever to load/unload passengers).

Even with some more stops added in, the travel time should be lower than it was pre-2015.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How feasible is 'decking' over the Confederation Line either along Scott Street or as part of the Lebreton proposals without shutting down service?

Very feasible. It won't require anything more onerous than maybe a few weekend closures or some "trimmed" operating hours (ie. for a week or two, trains end at 12am instead of 1am).

The Yonge line in Toronto from Bloor to Eglinton was originally trenched, and almost all of it has since been decked over for real estate construction.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary recently decked a tunnel portal without a weekday closure.

• Video Link

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Good question. The underground stations almost certainly will.

There was some talk, back when OC Transpo was looking at signage/advertising/info policies for the line, of putting signage up in escalators explaining to Ottawans how "walk left, stand right" works.

Also useful: A "KEEP WALKING AFTER YOU GET OFF THE ESCALATOR YOU BLITHERING MORON" educational campaign.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Canadians are patient. It can be a problem in cities.

This Canadian ain't!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

This is the primary benefit I see of low-floor trains. Everyone on here likes to complain about inner-city transit, but if we ever want to see LRTs or streetcars running inside the greenbelt, low-floor LRTs are a good start.

Indeed.

But street-running streetcars will be opposed by the same cheap suburban voters and councilors who take it as a personal affront when they get stuck behind a bus.

And so, when any new fixed transit is built, it will be segregated LRT, and serving those same suburban cheapskates, not city central residents.

Enjoy our tax dollars, Orleans.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by EdFromOttawa

Or bring people back downtown.

Or even out the mix of uses, and increase densities and fineness of grain, in the suburbs, too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Plus the LRT vehicles themselves are capable of higher speeds, and have shorter dwell times at each station than buses do (this is very dramatic at stations like Hurdman where buses take forever to load/unload passengers).

Even with some more stops added in, the travel time should be lower than it was pre-2015.

Express routes take 25 minutes from CTC to Tunney's (once phase one opens probably another 5 minutes to downtown). I would have a hard time imaging a 19 stop tram line making that kind of time. Station deceleration/accelerations are a minute each (https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-does-an-average-NYC-subway-stop-delay-a-train) dwell time is probably 20-30 seconds, so that's 30 minutes without travel time (which would be 15 minutes at maximum speed and probably more since trams won't spend much time at max speeed).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Like build new Transitways?

No. A better option is to run DMUs on current (and former) rail right of ways. Optimally they would terminate downtown (if we can find a way to build a new downtown station), but would also connect to LRT lines at several other locations

I remember in the early days of all this planning, trying to convince a city councillor that we should at least make allowances for a third set of tracks for express trains in the peak direction. Three tracks would not have been needed in the tunnel because that is the destination. Nobody took me seriously naturally and now this.

Agreed. That should have been considered. It would create a bit of a scheduling nightmare though when you approach peek frequency. Assuming trains can only run every 90 seconds and you alternate between local and express trains, the local train can only run a maximum of every 3 minutes, since the express train will share the same track downtown (and likely contra flow as well). You then need to make sure the express train gets downtown exactly 90 seconds after local train ahead of it and 90 seconds before the local train it passed. Given that the time at each station is unpredictable, the timing for the departure of the express train would be difficult to predict.

Alternately I thought that while the tunnel should be only for the LRT (bus tunnels need to be wider to accommodate driver error when steering), outside of the downtown core they should be just inlaying tracks in the transitway, that way both buses and trains could use it. You would want separate platforms for the buses and trains though, so that they don't conflict with each other when stopped. This would obviously be a temporary solution. Once the LRT starts to get close to capacity the buses would have to be removed from the ROW and an alternate solution would be required, but by then the city will be much bigger and it would be easier to justify alternate forms of transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Plus the LRT vehicles themselves are capable of higher speeds, and have shorter dwell times at each station than buses do (this is very dramatic at stations like Hurdman where buses take forever to load/unload passengers).

Even with some more stops added in, the travel time should be lower than it was pre-2015.

The Trillium Line runs much slower than buses, with the latest 'improvements'. Even before, a bus would outpace a train near Walkley where they run parallel.

We will see.

[MalcolmTucker]

The gain in frequency will more than make up for any loss in travel time, especially so for users in the walkshed.

[zzptichka]

3rd track sounds like a terrible idea. Much wider ROW and stations, more expensive, scheduling nightmares, increased downtime due to routing failures, etc. If it's one-way express in peak direction then how do you plan to get all these express trains out of downtown during the morning peak for example?
Before you know it people will start complaining about missing 4th track for two-way express.
Has it even been done on any LRT/subway systems before?

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh yes it has been done. And with full automation it is pretty easy. Would probably only work until a certain ppdph, and before the line starts spuring. otherwise you'd end up with four different trains running on the same line. Just too complicated.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Express routes take 25 minutes from CTC to Tunney's (once phase one opens probably another 5 minutes to downtown). I would have a hard time imaging a 19 stop tram line making that kind of time. Station deceleration/accelerations are a minute each (https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-does-an-average-NYC-subway-stop-delay-a-train) dwell time is probably 20-30 seconds, so that's 30 minutes without travel time (which would be 15 minutes at maximum speed and probably more since trams won't spend much time at max speeed).

I think you did some miscalculations. First of all they weren't sure if that included time to load and unload but I suspect it did (they referenced a 20 second dwell time). You are also forgetting the train will cover some distance while accelerating and decelerating (and given how close the proposed stations are together, it probably won't get to full speed for very long before having to slow down again). Also, the 19 stops are to downtown, not Tunnies.

So lets look at the math again. Here are my assumptions:

• They say it takes 96 seconds to stop at a station, while traveling 2639 feet (approximately 800 m) and that includes a 20 second dwell time.
• There will be 15 stops between the CTC and Tunnies, so 16 stops if you assume it has to accelerate at CTC and decelerate at Tunnies.
• It will be approximately 21 km from CTC to Tunnnies.
• Cruising speed of 80 km/h.

Doing the math:

total stop time: 1536 s
total stop distance: 12.8 km
Cruising distance: 8.2 km
Cruising time:369 s
total time: 1905 s or 31.75 min

So it will be about 6 minutes longer than the current 25 minutes stated.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

3rd track sounds like a terrible idea. Much wider ROW and stations, more expensive, scheduling nightmares, increased downtime due to routing failures, etc.
Before you know it people would start complaining about missing 4th track for two-way express. Has it even been done on any LRT/subway systems before?

New York is mostly 4 track. It seems a little excessive for a city Ottawa's size though.

Most cities use a variety of transit technologies (for example London has the tube, crossrail, dlr, overground, commuter rail, etc) that serve different purposes.

I think the problem is the city keeps trying to shoehorn a single technology for the whole city. First it was BRT, which is totally sensible in certain settings, but not everywhere (hence the need to rip out much of it). Now it is LRT, which is a perfectly sensible for areas that are fairly close to downtown but doesn't make a lot of sense in the further suburbs where the number of stops to downtown gets ridiculous.

[Aylmer]

I still think that it would be much more reasonable to create a regional O-Train network to the outer suburbs: it would require some new alignments as well as a downtown station, but I think it could provide faster service to areas which are further out: in addition to allowing for fewer stations, the ability to have diesel-electric trains and (potentially) run on mainline tracks would allow for the trains to go further than the outer suburbs and reach the surrounding towns (Arnprior, Casselman, Smiths Falls, etc.).

Now I guess the real question is whether any of this is worth six minutes. In my opinion, it isn't, especially once you factor in the added comfort, frequency and reliability.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

New York is mostly 4 track. It seems a little excessive for a city Ottawa's size though.

Agreed. That would be excessive. Maybe in a couple hundred years.

Most cities use a variety of transit technologies (for example London has the tube, crossrail, dlr, overground, commuter rail, etc) that serve different purposes.

Most cities the size of Ottawa? The London metropolitan area has a population of almost 14 million. The Ottawa/Gatineau Metropolitan area has a population of just over 1.2 million. That is over an order of magnitude larger.

I think the problem is the city keeps trying to shoehorn a single technology for the whole city. First it was BRT, which is totally sensible in certain settings, but not everywhere (hence the need to rip out much of it). Now it is LRT, which is a perfectly sensible for areas that are fairly close to downtown but doesn't make a lot of sense in the further suburbs where the number of stops to downtown gets ridiculous.

I agree to some extent. The problem is our small population makes it difficult to justify multiple transit systems to ensure everyone is serviced optimally. The transitway was a pretty good jack of all trades. Its problems were that it encouraged urban sprawl and it funneled most of the buses onto Albert and Slater streets, creating congestion and capacity issues.

The LRT will encourage more people to move closer to downtown. If, for a moment, we forget about what people want for their current situation and instead think about what we want the city to look like in 20 or 30 years, what do we see? Do we want more urban sprawl? People commuting from Arnprior, Smiths Falls, Carleton Place, Kempville or Casselman? How about Renfrew, Perth, Brockville or Alexandria? Meanwhile the downtown core turns into a ghost town during evenings and weekend because it is too far away. Or would we rather see more people live closer to town and end up with a vibrant city?

Transportation infrastructure (be it roads or transit) is like The Field of Dreams: Build it and they will come. Build a sprawling network and we will get a sprawling city. Build a dense, efficient network and we will get a dense, efficient city. Phase 1 makes sense as it fixes the short term problems while being compatible with a long term vision for a vibrant city.