Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[swimmer_spe]

I notice that a lot of the discussion these days is how horrible the service will become with the LRT.

Every time any new mass transit is implemented, the opposite is the case.

Toronto is extending the subway up to Vaughan. Do you think people at York U will see their ride get longer? Will it be less service frequency? No! If anything things will get much much better.

The LRT is Ottawa's second mass transit system. The former O-train had service frequency issues due to a number of factors. Diesel MUs, single track, were 2 of those issues. The LRT will be double tracked and be electric. So, it stands to reason that it will be faster overall.

They can keep adding more LRT trains till they get to their maximum headway (Someone may be able to quote an exact time)

I think those naysayers, after a year that the LRT is running, should have to apologize for being so negative.

After this LRT line is built out to the far reaches, I am certain that the city will look what to do next. Double tracking and extending the O-train to the Airport will be on the list. I bet they will also look at other places where there would be a high demand for a new LRT line.

Building the line on the edge of a neighbourhood is not that bad. If it was not raining and I knew that I had less than a 15 minute walk to the nearest station, I would ride the LRT into town.

[Aylmer]

For my studies, I live in Montréal about a 15 minute walk (1.5 km) uphill to the nearest Metro station. Maybe it's just because it's uphill and the walk itself is rather dull, but it's long enough for me to find it unpleasant. That said, it's not so long that I don't do it regularly.

For me, 10 minutes (1 km at my brisk pace) is about as much as I'd ideally like to walk to access RT, which lines up with an old study from Edmonton that concluded that 50% of people will walk up to 0.9km to LRT and 0.4 km to a bus.

That means that
-Campus will cover a walk-radius from O'Connor and Somerset to just short of Strathcona Park.
-Tunney's extends from the river to the Queensway and Parkdale.
-Pimisi extends down to Gladstone and Preston
etc.

Now, the problem with inner-city transit is that trips are generally shorter, so even if you're in a station's walkshed, it might still be faster for you to walk to your destination. For example, if you're at Somerset and Metcalfe and you want to make your way to Booth and Somerset, it'd be slightly faster to walk there than to walk, take the LRT and walk whereas this isn't something which an Orleans-to-Ottawa rider needs to worry about. In the city, transit plays more the role of a "pedestrian accelerator" than a car replacement, so things like close stop and line placement are big factors. On the other hand, speed is less of a concern since the distances are smaller. This is why streetcars were so well-adapted to cities (and vice-versa): they weren't super fast, but the closer lines and stops allowed them to "accelerate" certain portions of what were otherwise trips on foot. So if long-distance transit is a transit trips with portions on foot, urban transit is a walking trip with a portion in transit.

All this to say that, yes, a lot of inner-city neighbourhoods will be within the LRT's walkshed, but because of the nature of inner-city trips, it might not be as well-used since walking (and ESPECIALLY cycling) is very competitive. Now before certain eeyore's come out, it's worth noting that the operational savings and buses freed up by LRT could potentially be redeployed to add much-needed frequency to inner-city routes, which ultimately matters more than speed (except on the heavily-congested routes like Bank and Rideau).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I notice that a lot of the discussion these days is how horrible the service will become with the LRT.

Every time any new mass transit is implemented, the opposite is the case.

Toronto is extending the subway up to Vaughan. Do you think people at York U will see their ride get longer? Will it be less service frequency? No! If anything things will get much much better.

The LRT is Ottawa's second mass transit system. The former O-train had service frequency issues due to a number of factors. Diesel MUs, single track, were 2 of those issues. The LRT will be double tracked and be electric. So, it stands to reason that it will be faster overall.

They can keep adding more LRT trains till they get to their maximum headway (Someone may be able to quote an exact time)

I think those naysayers, after a year that the LRT is running, should have to apologize for being so negative.

After this LRT line is built out to the far reaches, I am certain that the city will look what to do next. Double tracking and extending the O-train to the Airport will be on the list. I bet they will also look at other places where there would be a high demand for a new LRT line.

Building the line on the edge of a neighbourhood is not that bad. If it was not raining and I knew that I had less than a 15 minute walk to the nearest station, I would ride the LRT into town.

I know I am one of the naysayers but only to the degree that we are expecting more than what is realistic. Claims are being made that defy logic in my mind. I am sure people will enjoy it when it is in operation. There is no question.

What we are doing is unique. We are doing a total rebuild of rapid transit. No city is doing it like we are. This is far beyond a change in signalling. This is also not like the Vaughan subway extension or the construction of the Canada Line in Vancouver or the Eglinton crosstown. In every one of those cases, new rapid transit is being built from scratch and the results of speedier transit is without question.

What we are doing presents the question. Will it be faster really? It is all about the rebuild. And what supposed new ridership market are we attracting? If it is a new line, it is obvious. This is not. In our case, claims of massive ridership gains are based on what? Claims that you can stay downtown after work are based on what? If you live in the suburbs, at some point you still face a transfer to a half hourly or hourly local bus route. So, how is it easier to stay downtown after rush hour? It won't be.

And our station locations are exactly the same as they were before. Why would a 15 minute walk to a LRT station be any better than a 15 minute walk to the same Transitway station with similar service levels? It won't be.

We have to be honest with ourselves. Trains do not provide magic solutions. It is the service quality that is more important. If the service level is not significantly changing, then why are we making so many claims?

Any presumptions that local transit service will suddenly improve are just that, presumptions. What is the chance of Route 124 to Beacon Hill suddenly operating on a 15 minute schedule during off-peak hours? What about Route 149 to Elmvale? The chances of this are slim to none.

We can hope for improvements to neighbourhood transit and perhaps there will be some but the city has given no indication that they will go in that direction. Recent budgetary restrictions have shown the city has no interest in expanding transit service in local neighbourhoods.

However, we are in a dilemma. The only way to produce real results is not with the Confederation Line itself but with improvements to the bus network that supports it. How the city re-uses (or doesn't reuse) surplus buses when the Confederation Line opens will determine how successful this will all be. Or will the city provide token improvements that they quietly cancel as has been the city's practice in the past when express routes were eliminated.

As I said, there is no question that the Confederation Line will be popular with riders. The question remains, will it really improve transit service significantly? And this alone makes this plan both unique and risky in comparison to what other cities are doing.

I do hope that we learn the lesson that we should not be building busways with the intention of later converting them to rail. This is proving to be a very wasteful way of delivering rapid transit. Just look at the way we are ripping up the right of way, demolishing every station and even a bridge.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Notice the screams for help at Greenboro. The Trillium Line must have shut down again.

No, the screams for help are another innocent person being swarmed.

That map is amazing.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

For my studies, I live in Montréal about a 15 minute walk (1.5 km) uphill to the nearest Metro station. Maybe it's just because it's uphill and the walk itself is rather dull, but it's long enough for me to find it unpleasant. That said, it's not so long that I don't do it regularly.

For me, 10 minutes (1 km at my brisk pace) is about as much as I'd ideally like to walk to access RT, which lines up with an old study from Edmonton that concluded that 50% of people will walk up to 0.9km to LRT and 0.4 km to a bus.

That means that
-Campus will cover a walk-radius from O'Connor and Somerset to just short of Strathcona Park.
-Tunney's extends from the river to the Queensway and Parkdale.
-Pimisi extends down to Gladstone and Preston
etc.

Now, the problem with inner-city transit is that trips are generally shorter, so even if you're in a station's walkshed, it might still be faster for you to walk to your destination. For example, if you're at Somerset and Metcalfe and you want to make your way to Booth and Somerset, it'd be slightly faster to walk there than to walk, take the LRT and walk whereas this isn't something which an Orleans-to-Ottawa rider needs to worry about. In the city, transit plays more the role of a "pedestrian accelerator" than a car replacement, so things like close stop and line placement are big factors. On the other hand, speed is less of a concern since the distances are smaller. This is why streetcars were so well-adapted to cities (and vice-versa): they weren't super fast, but the closer lines and stops allowed them to "accelerate" certain portions of what were otherwise trips on foot. So if long-distance transit is a transit trips with portions on foot, urban transit is a walking trip with a portion in transit.

All this to say that, yes, a lot of inner-city neighbourhoods will be within the LRT's walkshed, but because of the nature of inner-city trips, it might not be as well-used since walking (and ESPECIALLY cycling) is very competitive. Now before certain eeyore's come out, it's worth noting that the operational savings and buses freed up by LRT could potentially be redeployed to add much-needed frequency to inner-city routes, which ultimately matters more than speed (except on the heavily-congested routes like Bank and Rideau).

Your analysis is good.

It shows that we are designing the Confederation Line for commuters and not inner city dwellers. Stations are too far apart and not well located.

We can give all kinds of examples but if your trip ends up being 50% walking, why use transit at all? This is why these massive walking circles really don't work for shorter transit trips. And the longer your walk is, the less benefit you get from rapid transit.

We have to question the decision makers also when they automatically eliminate 50% of the market because of walking distance.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Any presumptions that local transit service will suddenly improve are just that, presumptions. What is the chance of Route 124 to Beacon Hill suddenly operating on a 15 minute schedule during off-peak hours? What about Route 149 to Elmvale? The chances of this are slim to none.

We can hope for improvements to neighbourhood transit and perhaps there will be some but the city has given no indication that they will go in that direction. Recent budgetary restrictions have shown the city has no interest in expanding transit service in local neighbourhoods.

However, we are in a dilemma. The only way to produce real results is not with the Confederation Line itself but with improvements to the bus network that supports it. How the city re-uses (or doesn't reuse) surplus buses when the Confederation Line opens will determine how successful this will all be. Or will the city provide token improvements that they quietly cancel as has been the city's practice in the past when express routes were eliminated.

The conversion of the Transitway to LRT enables more local bus service, because it makes it a lot easier to implement. It doesn't necessarily guarantee it, though, as you said.

[Mr.Flintstone]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Rideau-Vanier (Ward 12) 50,500
Rideau-Rockcliffe (Ward 13) 49,900
Somerset (Ward 14) 48,900
Kitchissippi (Ward 15) 41,700
Capital (Ward 17) 38,300

Total: 229,300

Population of Ottawa: 1,017,200

That's 23% in what I would call the older, urban city*, for 77% — not 80-90% — being in the suburbs.



* Not quite a perfect match, but close enough: there are a few suburban neighbourhoods in those wards, but also a few more urban-y areas in the other, predominantly suburban wards, so it roughly balances out.

I'm actually surprised by these numbers thought they would be at least double what they are. This explains the focus towards the suburb for the LRT.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know how you define suburban, but you're counting huge swaths of postwar suburbs built in the 50s and 60s: low density single family homes with a car in every driveway. I live in a 50s suburb. I certainly don't feel like I live in an urban area.

There's a few small swathes of post-war suburbs in those wards, but the vast majority of that area were built out by the 40s.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So the LRT will knock about 10 minutes (or about 25%) off your trip. That's horrible.

10 minutes?

How?

Where?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dundas

If you dont live on the train line, you take a feeder bus that would bring you to the closets station around your house. OC will need lots of feeder buses to bring people the the stations and back home. When a train packed empties at Blair, you'll need lots of buses ready.

For me, the closest station to my house is up to 40 minutes away by foot and bus, and in the most direct direction, brings me to an LRT station that is one station away from work.

Time advantage: zero

Convenience advantage: negative. I have to transfer onto what will be an already crowded train, for the sake of one stop, to complete my trip by transit, or, depending on how much the moron managers chop up the local routes, transfer to another bus to finish my commute.

LRT does NOTHING to improve local transit within the city centre, except in the eyes of the anti-bus fetishists who see removing as many buses from as many downtown streets as possible as a goal unto itself, for reasons that remain mysterious to anyone who actually uses transit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Now before certain eeyore's come out, it's worth noting that the operational savings and buses freed up by LRT could potentially be redeployed to add much-needed frequency to inner-city routes, which ultimately matters more than speed (except on the heavily-congested routes like Bank and Rideau).

But they won't be: the planners have already let it be known that they will use LRT as an excuse to cut service downtown and chop more crosstown routes into smaller pieces, forcing more people to waste more time making more transfers for more trips.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And our station locations are exactly the same as they were before.

Except in the core, where there are way fewer of them, a stupid planning decision by Jim the Cheapskate that is going to bite the city in the ass.

We can hope for improvements to neighbourhood transit and perhaps there will be some but the city has given no indication that they will go in that direction. Recent budgetary restrictions have shown the city has no interest in expanding transit service in local neighbourhoods.

And again, the indications are from the open houses that I attended previously that the changes they are planning, couched in the usual terms of "improvement" by people who don't use transit, will represent a reduction in the quality of service by people who actually do use transit.

[Aylmer]

There are valid points in all of your posts, Uhuniau, but I personally find - and I don't think I'm the only one - that it's hard to not tune out when they're hidden behind a haze of bitterness. I think a more factual tone would be a lot more effective in getting your point across.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

10 minutes?

How?

Where?

Not waiting for the lights at Laurier (2 lights since the detour), nicholas, Elgin, Metcalfe, O'Connor, Bank, Kent, Lyon, Bay, Bronson, Albert, Booth (now Preston).

Not stopping at Laurier, Bay and Elgin.

And during rush hour, not getting behind the long lineup of buses trying to get into downtown.

I would think more efficient acceleration and deceleration (because it is automated) would help as well.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What we are doing presents the question. Will it be faster really? It is all about the rebuild. And what supposed new ridership market are we attracting? If it is a new line, it is obvious. This is not. In our case, claims of massive ridership gains are based on what? Claims that you can stay downtown after work are based on what? If you live in the suburbs, at some point you still face a transfer to a half hourly or hourly local bus route. So, how is it easier to stay downtown after rush hour? It won't be.

And our station locations are exactly the same as they were before. Why would a 15 minute walk to a LRT station be any better than a 15 minute walk to the same Transitway station with similar service levels? It won't be.

We have to be honest with ourselves. Trains do not provide magic solutions. It is the service quality that is more important. If the service level is not significantly changing, then why are we making so many claims?

I think the quality of the experience will improve a fair bit. A lot of the sharp turns will be eliminated, the brake/gas style of driving popular among OC transpo drivers will be replaced with a computer controlling acceleration/deceleration. The rattling and shaking caused by running buses at highway speeds when they're clearly not designed for it will be eliminated.

I think more importantly, the practice of having to cram onto a downtown sidewalk waiting for your bus and then scramble to whichever of the 3-4 buses arrive at the same time (which can make the OC transpo experience truly awful) will be eliminated. The transfer will occur at an transfer station with multiple platforms.

Also, depending on routing it will be faster. The current scheduled route is 34 minutes from Blair to Tunneys and the official documents predict "less than 24 minutes".

You're right that local routes (or availability of park and rides) will be important, but even if service frequency does not improve, reliability should go up (although I am worried about Thales) which would make it a lot easier to plan a trip to minimize wait times.

I don't think it is a panacea, but I do think most existing users will have a better experience and it should attract more borderline transit users.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except in the core, where there are way fewer of them, a stupid planning decision by Jim the Cheapskate that is going to bite the city in the ass.

If you ignore the station for the Rideau Centre, we are dropping from 4 stops to 2 stops, but each stop will have both an east and west entrance, so there will be 4 station entrances. Currently the stops are about every 2 blocks and the blocks are about 180m long, so that means the stops are about 360m apart. For the LRT the platforms are about 120 m long and I would guess it would take about 60m (horizontally) to get up to ground level, so assuming the exits are off the end of the platform, that means the entrances would be about 240m apart, which seems reasonable to me (the stops aren't perfectly spaced right now anyway and currently the bus could stop anywhere along the block). With a bit of planning, you could get on (or move to) the end of the train that you want to exit from to save time at the other end.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the quality of the experience will improve a fair bit. A lot of the sharp turns will be eliminated, the brake/gas style of driving popular among OC transpo drivers will be replaced with a computer controlling acceleration/deceleration. The rattling and shaking caused by running buses at highway speeds when they're clearly not designed for it will be eliminated.

I think more importantly, the practice of having to cram onto a downtown sidewalk waiting for your bus and then scramble to whichever of the 3-4 buses arrive at the same time (which can make the OC transpo experience truly awful) will be eliminated. The transfer will occur at an transfer station with multiple platforms.

Also, depending on routing it will be faster. The current scheduled route is 34 minutes from Blair to Tunneys and the official documents predict "less than 24 minutes".

You're right that local routes (or availability of park and rides) will be important, but even if service frequency does not improve, reliability should go up (although I am worried about Thales) which would make it a lot easier to plan a trip to minimize wait times.

I don't think it is a panacea, but I do think most existing users will have a better experience and it should attract more borderline transit users.

Most of what you mention are nice little details, smoother ride, not waiting on a sidewalk. But typically with trains in rush hours, more will be standing than in the case of buses. Yes, buses can get crammed, but the % of available seats on a bus is almost always higher. Also, do you not think rail stations will also get crammed as well downtown? At least on the sidewalk, you can spread out further. Underground, this will be strictly limited by the platform size.

Yes, I understand that the trip through the tunnel will be faster but the saving of 10 minutes only applies if you traverse the entire downtown area. Most people do not, so that is the best case scenario. In the end, you have to transfer if you are not within walking distance of a station. After Phase 2, 70% of the population will be within 5km. What does that translate to within reasonable walking distance of 800 m? 20%?

Confederation Line Phase 1 has 0 Park n Ride lots at stations. This reason alone points to the need for getting Phase 2 started as soon as possible. Phase 1 was a bare minimum of doing anything useful.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Most of what you mention are nice little details, smoother ride, not waiting on a sidewalk. But typically with trains in rush hours, more will be standing than in the case of buses. Yes, buses can get crammed, but the % of available seats on a bus is almost always higher. Also, do you not think rail stations will also get crammed as well downtown? At least on the sidewalk, you can spread out further. Underground, this will be strictly limited by the platform size.

Yes, I understand that the trip through the tunnel will be faster but the saving of 10 minutes only applies if you traverse the entire downtown area. Most people do not, so that is the best case scenario. In the end, you have to transfer if you are not within walking distance of a station. After Phase 2, 70% of the population will be within 5km. What does that translate to within reasonable walking distance of 800 m? 20%?

Confederation Line Phase 1 has 0 Park n Ride lots at stations. This reason alone points to the need for getting Phase 2 started as soon as possible. Phase 1 was a bare minimum of doing anything useful.

I would think there would be a lot less crowding on the platform because the platform will clear every 3 minutes (2 in the future) when a new train arrives (unlike the current situation where passengers from a dozen or so regular routes and another dozen express routes have to wait on the sidewalk until their bus arrives).

During rush hour the average wait time would be 90 seconds (60 when 2 minute frequency is implemented in the future), so even with a little walk to the platform most people would still be ahead in time (and way ahead in comfort).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I would think there would be a lot less crowding on the platform because the platform will clear every 3 minutes (2 in the future) when a new train arrives (unlike the current situation where passengers from a dozen or so regular routes and another dozen express routes have to wait on the sidewalk until their bus arrives).

During rush hour the average wait time would be 90 seconds (60 when 2 minute frequency is implemented in the future), so even with a little walk to the platform most people would still be ahead in time (and way ahead in comfort).

Those are fair comments.

[bartlebooth]

I think LRT will lead to a significantly more predictable travel experience and that matters a lot for current riders and for attracting new riders. Having people pay before they reach the platform, having all doors open when the train stops, having trains stop at every station (not having to flag it down to stop), being fully grade separated, not having the driver of the vehicle do so many things (mediate rider issues, drive, check tickets), etc... Things like this cause me frustration everyday and often add significantly more time to my commute making it hard to predict when I will be arriving somewhere. I live in a central, older part of the city and while this system will not perfectly align with all of my travel needs, I think this system will be a major improvement over what we have now.