Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But that kind of proves the point. Lets say they interline at first. What happens when there is more demand on the other sections that are not interlined? You basically have locked yourself into a problem.

The Trillium line should never be interlined, and will never happen. It is connected to heavy rail and there is always the risk of a train going to far and then it enters the LRT system.

The good thing about having a transfer point is that you can see the demand. An argument for a second line downtown can be made.

The Skytrain is currently interlined. The Expo and Millennium lines are currently interlined. After the Evergreen extension is complete and opened, there will still be some trains from Expo going on the Millennium line for a station or so. It will limit the number of trains that can be used on the line.

Montreal is not interlined.

Edmonton LRT is interlined. So is the C-Train in Calgary.

Saying that the Transitway is interlined is not really a good argument. Look at how congested the Central Transitway was.

If interlining becomes a problem, then you are already reaching the point when you need to build a second downtown route.

In the case of Montreal, they already have 3 subways that run into the downtown area as well as a number of commuter routes. They are now planning another major LRT project that will run through downtown and will serve the West Island, the airport, and the south shore. This project will interline three routes.

I really don't understand the comment on heavy rail. That is a serious train control issue if a heavy rail train ends up on an LRT line. Regardless, in order to complete the Trillium Line, conversion to LRT is necessary. As it stands, they are already planning to at least partially segregate heavy rail trains (which are very rare) from the Trillium Line as part of Phase 2. Of course, the Trillium Line cannot be interlined as long as they continue to use DMUs. But we all know the issues with the Trillium Line that can't maintain schedules even with a 12 minute frequency.

[Kitchissippi]

The Confederation line has 10 times the capacity as the Trillium line, diluted over 2 to 4 times the frequency. The Trillium line also hardly has a directional bias during rush hour, as many transfer on it as out, so the load on the Confederation line is relatively neutral. There is absolutely no rationale that the Bayview transfer point will be a problem for years to come or if ever.

I doubt the majority of Trillium line passengers have downtown as their end destination. Some go to Tunney's Pasture for work and there are many Carleton students from the west end. If you interlined into, how far east would you go? Passengers from the east will likely have to transfer at one point so it's a mug's game.

3+ transfers per journey in any of the metro systems in Europe is pretty normal. We're whining before it's even a reality.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just think of it this way. The commute time to downtown from my home is about 45 minutes. Under the best case scenario, if we add just 9 minutes for additional transfers, does that not almost certainly increase my commute time? We are spending billions of dollars to accomplish that?

I was in Poland a year ago, and every city has rail transit. In order to minimize transfers, there was interlining everywhere. If you have to wait 10 minutes for a train going directly to your destination, why would you take a less direct route and transfer? Why would that even be desirable?

I don't understand this obsession with the need to have a train every 3 minutes to Westboro. Is there really that much pent up demand in Westboro? Would it make that much difference if trains ran every 5 minutes instead of every 3 minutes.

If you only have to wait 3 minutes for your train, then 3 minutes for your transfer.

Remember this from Human Transit:





If you run a transfer point under the above system, you can operate far higher frequency on the lines for the same cost. Even with entirely un-coordinated transfers you save time.

The reason I object to further interlining is the projected future frequency is already really high and interlined. The tunnel doesn't have unlimited capacity and one of the TMP documents already foresees 30,000 ppdph without suffering the frequency penalty of another interline (iirc).

Now, if the interlined trains are as full and as long as the ones they displace, that is a different problem all together. But really, is Trillium going to be able to load as close to crush as Confed?

Transfers will allow more frequent shorter trains to run on Trillium. More interlining you'll end up with headway issues like with BART, the Washington Metro, or yes, different parts of the Tokyo rail network.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The Confederation line has 10 times the capacity as the Trillium line, diluted over 2 to 4 times the frequency. The Trillium line also hardly has a directional bias during rush hour, as many transfer on it as out, so the load on the Confederation line is relatively neutral. There is absolutely no rationale that the Bayview transfer point will be a problem for years to come or if ever.

I doubt the majority of Trillium line passengers have downtown as their end destination. Some go to Tunney's Pasture for work and there are many Carleton students from the west end. If you interlined into, how far east would you go? Passengers from the east will likely have to transfer at one point so it's a mug's game.

3+ transfers per journey in any of the metro systems in Europe is pretty normal. We're whining before it's even a reality.

3+ Transfers? Give us examples in a city of similar size and for a trip to the city centre. I am waiting ........

What you are telling us about is the failure of the Trillium Line as it is presently configured. As I have said, it is mainly a student train. But plans for the future will force people to use it to go downtown. If the Route 85 bus no longer goes downtown. If the Route 99 terminates at Bowesville.

What we are creating at Bayview is bound to fail. The 'experts' now realize that it is unlikely that they can boost the current 12 minute frequency and it is far from reliable on its schedule. And because of that, they are proposing 2 car Trillium Line trains with Phase 2.

So what happens when a 2 car Trillium Line train dumps its passengers at Bayview in the future? Remember, the Confederation Line trains are also 2 car trains. Think about it.

I also wish to ask about these great European cities that only have one major transit line into the city centre.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Worse yet, beam falls on tracks, train derails, 20 people killed. Anybody remember the details of what happened when Carleton was building over the Trillium Line? I know the Trillium Line closed but for how long?

Unnecessarily long. This kind of work is done in other jurisdiction all the time without such stupid delays and disruptions.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If you only have to wait 3 minutes for your train, then 3 minutes for your transfer.

Remember this from Human Transit:





If you run a transfer point under the above system, you can operate far higher frequency on the lines for the same cost. Even with entirely un-coordinated transfers you save time.

The reason I object to further interlining is the projected future frequency is already really high and interlined. The tunnel doesn't have unlimited capacity and one of the TMP documents already foresees 30,000 ppdph without suffering the frequency penalty of another interline (iirc).

Now, if the interlined trains are as full and as long as the ones they displace, that is a different problem all together. But really, is Trillium going to be able to load as close to crush as Confed?

Transfers will allow more frequent shorter trains to run on Trillium. More interlining you'll end up with headway issues like with BART, the Washington Metro, or yes, different parts of the Tokyo rail network.

The upper diagram is not what we are creating. Instead, change the upper diagram to have just the red line. Then all the other lines are narrow because they have much lower frequency and have them connect to somewhere other than the centre and then have a secondary set of lines that don't connect with the red line at all. So, unless you live on the red line, your trip is often far from direct. Just look at the red line in the lower diagram and the trip required in the upper diagram.

The upper diagram also assumes that you have to go through the city centre to reach your destination, but if you start at one of the upper points and your destination is another upper point, then you have to go way out of your way to reach your destination. Any gains in frequency are more than lost by having to travel through the centre point.

These theories are always too simplistic.

And when will the high frequency short trains happen on the Trillium Line? Not in my lifetime it appears.

The BART issue has everything to do with the cost of building another tunnel under San Francisco Bay. So you run short trains that connect to longer trains. People do not like transfers. That is a reality proven by study after study. Also, if your commute is long but direct, you get your computer out or your book or your smart phone or even just snooze. If you have to transfer after transfer, that time is much less likely to be productive.

[MalcolmTucker]

So this is a good idea?:


Source: City of Ottawa and Paint

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And when will the high frequency short trains happen on the Trillium Line? Not in my lifetime it appears.

In order for interlining on the Trillium line to even be possible, we have to convert the Trillium Line to electric LRT, which means high frequency short trains.

The possible outcomes are:
1) Status quo, with low frequency Trillium trains ending at Bayview
2) High frequency service on the Trillium line with a transfer at Bayview
3) High frequency service on the Trillium line interlined into downtown

We're talking about 2) vs. 3). So complaints about the low frequency of the Trillium Line are irrelevant to the interlining debate.

[swimmer_spe]

Right now, how many pph come off of the Trillium line at Bayview or visa versa?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, how many pph come off of the Trillium line at Bayview or visa versa?

Not more than 1,500pph (or way below), which is why interlining it is not a great idea. Even if you did, and say 1 out of 4 trains in the tunnel are Trillium, people would just be waiting for it to come by and taking up space in the platforms unnecessarily. What's the point when it's better to stage the transfer and waiting in a station with separate platforms for each line. The stations in the tunnels aren't designed for interlining, they are too small — the more trains you interline, the more you'll crowd the platforms with people waiting for the right train.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I was in Poland a year ago, and every city has rail transit. In order to minimize transfers, there was interlining everywhere. If you have to wait 10 minutes for a train going directly to your destination, why would you take a less direct route and transfer? Why would that even be desirable?

I was born and raised in Poland (Gdansk), and you can't compare to Ottawa. The high population density itself over there, makes it apples and oranges. Yes, they have rail, over a dozen cities in Poland have streetcar systems, add to that many suburban rail systems, and the constantly growing Warsaw metro, and inter-city rail (express, local, international). In most cities, you can live without a car and commute and do your daily chores using public transit with none, or one transfer. Most big cities were destroyed during WWII (except Krakow), and after WWII, they were re-built with rail systems in mind. That resulted in the high population densities and the efficient transit systems. Ottawa, in fact, most of Canadian cities, were built totally differently, and now we are stuck with limited and costly options when building urban rail systems. The result, more transfers. Its just how it is, and will be. In Canada, we deal with nasty weather in the winter, so its really not a big deterrent for us to deal with more transfers on a grand scheme of things.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Not more than 1,500pph (or way below), which is why interlining it is not a great idea. Even if you did, and say 1 out of 4 trains in the tunnel are Trillium, people would just be waiting for it to come by and taking up space in the platforms unnecessarily. What's the point when it's better to stage the transfer and waiting in a station with separate platforms for each line. The stations in the tunnels aren't designed for interlining, they are too small — the more trains you interline, the more you'll crowd the platforms with people waiting for the right train.

So two trains an hour on each Trillium branch? I'd sure love to wait 30 minutes so I could avoid a transfer

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So two trains an hour on each Trillium branch? I'd sure love to wait 30 minutes so I could avoid a transfer

Doesn't it currently run every 10 minutes?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Doesn't it currently run every 10 minutes?

But if you interline, as the tunnel approaches capacity, which it is forecast to do, you have to reduce frequencies to be proportional to the people capacity needed or else you are wasting tunnel capacity. The trains will need to be long and infrequent. This is common in Japan where a commuter train will run once or twice an hour down a subway tunnel (saw this in both Kyoto and Tokyo). The benefits of interlining.

Plus Trillium will have two branches, so that halves the frequency past that point, unless you are coupling/uncoupling trains or transferring.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But if you interline, as the tunnel approaches capacity, which it is forecast to do, you have to reduce frequencies to be proportional to the people capacity needed or else you are wasting tunnel capacity. Plus Trillium will have two branches, so that halves the frequency past that point, unless you are coupling/uncoupling trains or transferring.

So, a 10 minute wait if it is not interlined, or a 30 minute wait if it were interlined?

[Kitchissippi]

Even if the waiting time was the same, what's the difference between waiting at Lyon or waiting at Bayview? none.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, a 10 minute wait if it is not interlined, or a 30 minute wait if it were interlined?

Within the forseeable future when the tunnel becomes capacity constrained. You'd probably need to build Trillium to a higher standard as well, as it would need automated train operation.

Balancing trains in interlining is hard as you are trying to avoid empty (or not full enough) trains traveling through your capacity constrained bit. In places where the entire transit grid is constrained, it doesn't really matter as much, like Tokyo. Calgary decided against adding the SE LRT as an interline in the 90s because they didn't want to have to add enough capacity to accommodate the line on the existing network.

The system would work much better if Trillium line linked to Hurdman, presuming that Trillium line needs similar capacity as one of the western branches. You'd still need transfers at both ends of the Carleton Link though.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Within the forseeable future when the tunnel becomes capacity constrained. You'd probably need to build Trillium to a higher standard as well, as it would need automated train operation.

Balancing trains in interlining is hard as you are trying to avoid empty (or not full enough) trains traveling through your capacity constrained bit. In places where the entire transit grid is constrained, it doesn't really matter as much, like Tokyo. Calgary decided against adding the SE LRT as an interline in the 90s because they didn't want to have to add enough capacity to accommodate the line on the existing network.

The system would work much better if Trillium line linked to Hurdman, presuming that Trillium line needs similar capacity as one of the western branches. You'd still need transfers at both ends of the Carleton Link though.

Anyone ever ridden the Green Line in Boston? It is an interlined line. The downtown common stations are horribly congested.

[zzptichka]

If they continue Trillium into Gatineau, interlining won't make much sense, no?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Even if the waiting time was the same, what's the difference between waiting at Lyon or waiting at Bayview? none.

But that is not true. Each transfer has an incremental delay. For example, let's say the current Trillium Line runs through the tunnel and runs every 12 minutes. The wait is 6 minutes on average. Now let's look at the Confederation Line with a transfer at Bayview. If the Confederation Line runs every 3 minutes, your wait is 1.5 minutes on average. You still have to add the 6 minute average wait at Bayview for a total of 7.5 minutes.

We have to think of the current situation with buses running to Bayview measured in seconds at peak periods but still people mostly refuse to use the Bayview transfer from downtown. Transfers do make a difference otherwise downtown passengers would be using it in droves.