Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

We built the Transitways for commuter service from day one. We had this concept also from the beginning that it was convertible to LRT, but it is still a commuter route.

What this discussion is pointing to my concern for a long time, that we want it to be something else. We can't redefine this as urban transit at this point because its ridership was built with commuters. But even the experts are getting all of this confused, so we end up with something in between, which is not ideal for anybody.

The idea of introducing commuter DMU rail service to the suburbs will only work if we have a downtown station. As I mentioned, the worst thing we could create is a bus, train, train commute or a bus, bus, train commute or something more convoluted. This will just drive commuters away from the system, unless they are captive to high priced downtown parking, but those people will flee the system as soon as alternative transport is available. Do we want people grudgingly using transit? We want it to be fast and easy to use, not that half your commute is standing on platform somewhere.

I cannot see a downtown rail station ever coming back. 1966 is 50 years ago now. That passed the day they lifted the rails and built a pretty park.

So, introducing new O-Trains on existing track will almost exclusively service cross-town riders. Just as the Trillium Line is overwhelming used by students. We can't force people to travel on some round about route to downtown and transfer a few times in the process. Also, we cannot impose our trains on VIA rail track at a time when service expansion is becoming more likely.

We need an answer if our multi-billion dollar transit route is going deliver slower service even on the main corridor, let alone to transferring passengers. I don't believe there is an answer beyond getting those trains moving as fast as possible. My idea of express trains is not in the cards obviously, but the concept would have moved suburban commuters faster. There is no need to have a train stopping every 2 minutes at Cyrville Station or Westboro Station with nobody getting on or off most trains. And if we are getting to capacity in the tunnel, you better have already been looking at solutions five or more years previously. Unlike the Transitway, where you have some ways of dealing with capacity, once you max out the tunnel, you have no choices. That Bank Street and Rideau Street subway better already be under construction. But let's not carried away, the experts assure us that we have decades of surplus capacity. Do we not believe the experts?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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



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 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.

Do you really believe this? We are talking about one corridor across the city. We are not building a network of tramways that exist in many European cities. If you don't live within walking distance of the Confederation Line, you are left with the same crappy service.

Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but look, we are planning the Orleans extension right to the edge of the urban boundary. Doesn't this reinforce sprawl as you describe it?

There are other factors that created sprawl. They included massive population growth since 1950. And the car culture. The Confederation Line is not significantly changing the car culture. For most of the city, you will still need a car for most everything. Also, the disturbing trend of building condos downtown while jobs move to the suburbs.

Also, people buy homes for lifestyle and affordability. Affordability drives a lot of people to the suburbs. Not everybody wants the hectic downtown lifestyle. Lifestyle is driving growth in Rockland, Arnprior, Kemptville and Carleton Place. Some like the small town feel, some like to have a little bit of land.

I like the idea that we are revitalizing our downtown so that trend is good, but there is a limit to what the Confederation Line is going to accomplish. I have said many times, that the route east of downtown couldn't be worse. By following the Queensway, there is a limit to the attractiveness of building expensive condos next to the line.

I don't think we can defeat the car culture by building one very expensive rail line. We need a transit grid of a variety of modes of high frequency transit to make it easier to get around the city without a car.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But let's not carried away, the experts assure us that we have decades of surplus capacity. Do we not believe the experts?

It depends how they have modeled the population growth. If they are strictly using historical growth and assuming LRT won't change anything, then they will likely have it wrong. If they realize that LRT will affect where people want to live, and the model is correct, then maybe it will be okay.

With the modern push to Public Private Partnerships, I am surprised they haven't done this with the LRT and have developers pay to build the stations and in return get a long term lease for the land for their own development. Why not have shops attached to the stations and condos above them as long as access to the station isn't restricted? Wouldn't that be a sweet commute in the winter? Elevator down to the station, take the train, and then elevator up to your office.

[MalcolmTucker]

Land has to cost a lot to make that worth it. Quebec is casting a wider net using tax increment financing around their P3 lines to fund them. Will be interesting to see how well they work. I'm not a fan of tax increment financing in general because it can be used to hide the cost of things in a budget, but if it allows the public to stomach tax increases in exchange for transit, while transferring risk to the private sector (if development doesn't happen) I'm prepared to put water in my wine.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Do you really believe this? We are talking about one corridor across the city. We are not building a network of tramways that exist in many European cities. If you don't live within walking distance of the Confederation Line, you are left with the same crappy service.

I said it was a step in the right direction, not the final solution.

Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but look, we are planning the Orleans extension right to the edge of the urban boundary. Doesn't this reinforce sprawl as you describe it?

Agreed. Once again, I said phase 1. Phase 2 doesn't make any sense at all, especially in the east and south.

.
.
.
I don't think we can defeat the car culture by building one very expensive rail line. We need a transit grid of a variety of modes of high frequency transit to make it easier to get around the city without a car.

Agreed, all I was saying was that it is a good first step. Will it solve all of the problems? No, but it is much better than the previous plan to only extend the Trillium line south and then loop north into Barrhaven without a direct connection downtown.

[acottawa]

The thing is I think phase one of the Confederation Line will work pretty well. Express buses will get people from the suburbs to one of the transfer points, there will be a 3-4 minute transfer and a 5-10 minute ride downtown from that point. BRT is an appropriate mechanism to get people from low density suburbs, LRT is an appropriate mechanism to move people in and out of the core.

I think it is as phases continue, things get less sensible: densities go down, car culture goes up, and LRT doesn't offer a particular advantage over BRT in terms of time (in fact it will get worse as LRT pushes farther into the suburbs), and there is less and less ridership outside of peak hours, so the cost per passenger goes way up.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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).

Those calculations are way too high.

Dwell time will only be 5-10 seconds at the more minor stations. Stations like Cyrville and Iris will probably be as low as 3-4 seconds. Nowhere near 20-30 seconds; that number will be approached only at the downtown stations at peak. Furthermore, acceleration/deceleration won't be a full minute--our LRT trains are a helluva lot lighter than a NYC subway train.

The full time required to serve a stop--deceleration, dwell time, acceleration again--is probably only about 30-40 seconds total. I did a back-of-napkin calculation once (it's probably somewhere in this thread!) using the published specs of the Alstom Citadis Spirit (100km/h max speed and 1.2 m/s^2 acceleration) and some basic physics and arrived at 31 seconds.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Those calculations are way too high.

Dwell time will only be 5-10 seconds at the more minor stations. Stations like Cyrville and Iris will probably be as low as 3-4 seconds. Nowhere near 20-30 seconds; that number will be approached only at the downtown stations at peak. Furthermore, acceleration/deceleration won't be a full minute--our LRT trains are a helluva lot lighter than a NYC subway train.

The full time required to serve a stop--deceleration, dwell time, acceleration again--is probably only about 30-40 seconds total. I did a back-of-napkin calculation once (it's probably somewhere in this thread!) using the published specs of the Alstom Citadis Spirit (100km/h max speed and 1.2 m/s^2 acceleration) and some basic physics and arrived at 31 seconds.

5-10 seconds seems awfully low; maybe if it is a button-based system and nobody presses the button for 5-10 seconds it will start moving, but an actual stop with actual passengers that seems pretty unlikely, particularly if the train is reasonably full.

Do you drive your car using the maximum acceleration, deceleration and speed? The settings on the vehicles will also incorporate things like passenger comfort, wear and tear on tracks and brakes, safety, etc.

[MoreTrains]

This line, will do much good. But it panders to the suburban electorate, with the assumption they hold the cards. Suburban residents, I doubt very much, would ever consider 'funding' a transit system with LRT and such within the Greenbelt, which quite obviously means to the city that they cannot be built.

It is much like Mr Nussbaum's assertion that if the downtown were to become subject to a congestion fee, the money collected should follow back to where the drivers originate from; thus a Stittsville resident who drove downtown should expect the money paid for the congestion fee to be spent back in Stittsville.

Everything in the city is expected to benefit everybody. Ottawa, as Im sure others do, does not city build, it panders. Councillors cannot stand their constituents not being part of the latest and greatest, so everyone suffers as result.

If the city wanted to build an effective city wide network, it would not do so by building the Confederation line from Kanata to Orleans, it would do so by building the Confederation line from Bayshore to Blair with transit-hubs at each point for the suburban residents to get off their BRT and onto the LRT/Metro. It would build LRT/Metro along Rideau/Montreal, Bank and Carling. The suburbs and portions of the city within the Greenbelt would be served by Local to BRT routes.

But you know, selfishness and all.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

5-10 seconds seems awfully low; maybe if it is a button-based system and nobody presses the button for 5-10 seconds it will start moving, but an actual stop with actual passengers that seems pretty unlikely, particularly if the train is reasonably full.

5 seconds might be a bit short, but 10 seconds is actually longer than it seems. I haven't timed it but don't think the Montreal metro waits longer than 10 seconds at quieter stations (assuming the track is clear).

Do you drive your car using the maximum acceleration, deceleration and speed? The settings on the vehicles will also incorporate things like passenger comfort, wear and tear on tracks and brakes, safety, etc.

Agreed. There are regulations on the maximum acceleration/deceleration for transit vehicles for passenger comfort/safety. With a computer controlled train, they can consistently achieve that maximum though.

Different sections of tracks will likely have different speed limits, so they may not always accelerate up to the train's maximum speed. Once again this will probably all be computer controlled for optimal performance.

[McC]

Originally Posted by roger1818

5 seconds might be a bit short, but 10 seconds is actually longer than it seems. I haven't timed it but don't think the Montreal metro waits longer than 10 seconds at quieter stations (assuming the track is clear).

There are lots of videos on youtube that you can use to count; at smaller stations you'll see the train stopping for something like 15-20s, give or take; at a big transfer station like Lionnel-Groux it's more like 30.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

It is much like Mr Nussbaum's assertion that if the downtown were to become subject to a congestion fee, the money collected should follow back to where the drivers originate from; thus a Stittsville resident who drove downtown should expect the money paid for the congestion fee to be spent back in Stittsville.

I disagree with this assertion. I would ascertain that if a suburban resident paid a congestion fee to travel downtown, that resident would actually expect that fee to reduce congestion downtown. Especially since that resident is travelling downtown, he/she would benefit from those improvements.

Where you do see push back (which is invalid IMHO) is with transit taxes where even people who live and work outside of downtown are paying for improved transit downtown, as they don't see any personal benefit. My opinion is it is our civic duty for us all to pay for services, some of which we use and some of which we don't, but they are all (hopefully) for the greater good of our community. I saw a the reverse complaint during amalgamation, where former City of Ottawa residents were complaining that the services that they had invested in (like the public library) were going to be shared with cities that had underfunded those services locally.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by McC

There are lots of videos on youtube that you can use to count; at smaller stations you'll see the train stopping for something like 15-20s, give or take; at a big transfer station like Lionnel-Groux it's more like 30.

10 seconds
https://youtu.be/Z5FR5jUaq04?t=4m40s

[AndyMEng]

I'm just getting back from a trip to Stockholm, a city of roughly 950,000 in the city, and 1.3M in the metro area.

I was AMAZED at the extensive transit network. Several subway lines, several 'commuter rail' lines (extending through a 4-track system and stopping at several key subway line stations, kind of like an 'express' line), trams, buses, a high speed train to the airport (200km/hr). The options were endless. At $6.50 for a 2 hour ticket, it was also crazy expensive, but not outside of the ordinary in a land of an $8 latte and $75 meatball dinner

I boarded a commuter train at 'Stockholm Sodra' which is a commuter rail line in a quiet neighborhood. The station was massive, underground, four tracks wide with two platforms...simply astounding the size of the system.



Another note: there's a congestion charge for autos to enter the 'downtown' and I found that there was never crazy traffic. The train lines are very busy and well-used, their central station is very large given that all modes of transportation end up there.

The one downside was the dozen-wide main-line running in a north-south through the city, over, under, through, next to, and generally splitting the downtown and the old city into two parts. This contains a couple of subway lines, commuter rail lines, inter-city rail lines, and a major highway. You can see the line across the right hand side of this photo:

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I disagree with this assertion. I would ascertain that if a suburban resident paid a congestion fee to travel downtown, that resident would actually expect that fee to reduce congestion downtown. Especially since that resident is travelling downtown, he/she would benefit from those improvements.

I agree with you. I was pointing out that it was his opinion. It was in a Citizen article a few days ago. And my bad, it wasnt Mr Nussbaum, and I apologize if he is on this forum. It was Mr Qadri.

On the other hand, Stittsville Coun. Shad Qadri said he could support tolls if the money is going to a specific cause, rather than being dumped into a general revenue account. Qadri said if residents of his ward are forced to pay a toll to drive downtown, he would expect the money to be reinvested in Stittsville.

“There has to be some benefit to where travellers are coming from,” Qadri said.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/council-puts-road-tolls-on-the-transportation-agenda

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

5-10 seconds seems awfully low; maybe if it is a button-based system and nobody presses the button for 5-10 seconds it will start moving, but an actual stop with actual passengers that seems pretty unlikely, particularly if the train is reasonably full.

Do you drive your car using the maximum acceleration, deceleration and speed? The settings on the vehicles will also incorporate things like passenger comfort, wear and tear on tracks and brakes, safety, etc.

It can be hard to believe, but if you measures dwell times at subway stations in Toronto and Montreal, it's at or under 10 seconds for all but the busiest stops (places like Bloor-Yonge, Union, Berri-UQAM, etc.). Yes, I'm enough of a transit nerd to have done this before. At very low ridership stations in Toronto like Old Mill, it's about 5 seconds. A good number of our stations will have very low ridership especially off-peak.

As for acceleration, 1.2m/s^2 is the "normal" operating acceleration of the Alstom Citadis for standard operation. 1.5m/s^2 is the engine maximum.

We also have confirmation that the braking and acceleration will be automated; this means that it will indeed use its theoretical perfects for these times (in Toronto, preliminary estimates are that the switch from manual to automated on the Yonge line will cut travel times by as much as 10% for this reason).

Here's the back-of-the-napkin calculation again (judge me freely, but I like doing math )

Deceleration time: This unfortunately, cannot be directly calculated because I don't know what the braking speed of the trains is (as far as I know, this has never been published). Based on by personal observations of Alstom Citadis trains in operation, I'm going to say it's a few seconds (let's say 3) longer than acceleration time.

Using an acceleration of 1.2m/s^2 from a top speed of 100km/h:
-100km/h is ~27.78m/s
-Using standard physics formula:
v-final = v-start + acceleration*time
27.78 = 0 + 1.2*time
27.78 = 1.2*time
27.78/1.2 = time
23.15 = time

So the acceleration time is 23.15 seconds. Let's say that means 24 seconds to accelerate, 27 seconds to decelerate, to/from top speed of 100km/h.

Let's throw in the dwell time of 10 seconds. The time from when the train starts slowing down to when the train is back at full speed again is thus 27+10+24=60 seconds.

To analyze how much time is added to a trip by having to stop, we also have to consider how much time it would have taken the train to go through the station without stopping.

This means we have to calculate the stopping distance, too. This is harder to calculate as a lot more variables influence it, but we can get close:

-Stopping time is 27 seconds
-Average velocity over stopping time: (~27.78/2) = ~13.89m/s
-Stopping distance: 27*~13.89=~375m

-Starting time is 24 seconds
-Average velocity over starting time: (~27.78/2) = ~13.89m/s
-Stopping distance: 24*~13.89=~334m

So it will take 403 metres of track for a train to brake from max speed to stop, and 334 metres of track for a train to speed up from rest to max speed. This means any station-to-station distance of less than 700m or so will result in the train not attaining its maximum speed. Very few stations in our network are that close together; I believe Parliament & Lyon is the only such combination with Phase 2 buildout.

Travelling over 700m at 100km/h (27.78m/s) would take:
v = d/t
vt = d
t = d/v
t = 700/27.78
t = 25.1 seconds

So, at each stop, decelerating, dwelling, and accelerating will take about 60 seconds, whereas not stopping there and just going through the same area would take 25 seconds.

So the time added to the trip by most station stops is 35 seconds, 10 of those seconds being dwell time. Based on that, at busy stations & times (like Parliament station at rush hour), it will likely approach 50 seconds, but at lower ridership stations like Cyrville or Iris, more like 30 seconds.

One thing that would modify these calculations are slow zones. There's probably some sections of the track where the train will not be able to attain its maximum speed based on track geometry. However, in such a case, the travel time without a station would be longer, so the time added by a stop is actually lower in such cases.

[MalcolmTucker]

Hopefully the doors are fast! With on demand doors the stop cycle is longer.

[1overcosc]

For the record, I do agree with the assertion that extending the Confederation Line into the outer suburbs is not the optimal way to serve them.

I'd scrap the Orleans extension from Phase 2, redirect all those funds into the Trillium Line (double track as much as possible for that budget, if any leftover build the airport spur), and plan for Blair, Baseline, Bayshore to be the final termini, with bus links to/from the outer suburbs from these stations. Once you get much farther out from the core than that, LRT starts to lose its utility and highway BRT becomes a better choice. Future phases beyond 2 should focus on finishing the Trillium Line (with full electrification and such) and on building more connections within the Greenbelt, such as a branch from Hurdman to the Hospital, new lines on Carling or Rideau-Bank, etc.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

I'm just getting back from a trip to Stockholm, a city of roughly 950,000 in the city, and 1.3M in the metro area.

I was AMAZED at the extensive transit network. Several subway lines, several 'commuter rail' lines (extending through a 4-track system and stopping at several key subway line stations, kind of like an 'express' line), trams, buses, a high speed train to the airport (200km/hr). The options were endless. At $6.50 for a 2 hour ticket, it was also crazy expensive, but not outside of the ordinary in a land of an $8 latte and $75 meatball dinner

I boarded a commuter train at 'Stockholm Sodra' which is a commuter rail line in a quiet neighborhood. The station was massive, underground, four tracks wide with two platforms...simply astounding the size of the system.

Stockholm is awesome, I lived there in 1989 when I was a kid, and I was lucky enough that my parents would actually let me ride the subway alone, at age 8. Did you notice how extremely deep some of the stations are? All that exposed bedrock as you ride down the escalators always amazed me. Another interesting tidbit about the Stockholm subway and commuter rail lines, is that a lot of the network was built out into areas which were not yet developed. Rail first, followed by development. Opposite mentality from here. Although historically, that's how it worked in Canada too, build rail then develop around it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

For the record, I do agree with the assertion that extending the Confederation Line into the outer suburbs is not the optimal way to serve them.

I'd scrap the Orleans extension from Phase 2, redirect all those funds into the Trillium Line (double track as much as possible for that budget, if any leftover build the airport spur), and plan for Blair, Baseline, Bayshore to be the final termini, with bus links to/from the outer suburbs from these stations. Once you get much farther out from the core than that, LRT starts to lose its utility and highway BRT becomes a better choice. Future phases beyond 2 should focus on finishing the Trillium Line (with full electrification and such) and on building more connections within the Greenbelt, such as a branch from Hurdman to the Hospital, new lines on Carling or Rideau-Bank, etc.

That is fine but you cannot ignore the suburbs. If you do not build rail to the suburbs, then you are building busways in their place. What we have today, does not satisfy future needs. There needs to be some balance because the population within the Greenbelt is pretty stagnant. If you do not address the suburbs, the growth potential of our transit system is very limited. We are also perpetuating the car culture in the suburbs, basically, throwing in the towel.

And this brings us back to the 2006 plan. The reason why it was rail was because it was making use of a rail corridor across the Greenbelt. It made sense and beyond Hunt Club, it was cheap to build.

There is no sense in double tracking the Trillium Line if our only intension is to have a line from Bayview to the Airport. Under those circumstances, it will remain a student train. You need the Bayview connection to the downtown tunnel, otherwise the Southeast Transitway will continue to be the primary route to downtown. Furthermore, without rapid transit south of Hunt Club, there is no means of attracting new ridership from the south and to grow ridership for the Trillium Line to justify double tracking.