Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

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. 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.

If the downtown tunnel is reaching capacity, we better be planning another route into downtown. But remember that the 'experts' tell us that we have ample capacity for decades. And with stagnant ridership, and falling transit modal share, I think it would be a better investment to rid ourselves of unnecessary transfers to try to encourage ridership. Remember, the transfer penalty is perceived to be more than the real delay.

I find it so funny that interlining is acceptable at Lincoln Fields but not at Bayview. Isn't this a double standard? The hint here is that fixing the Trillium mess is not coming for decades. That is the real reason why interlining is not being allowed for.

Yeah, the branch to the airport. What a mess they are going to create at South Keys to facilitate that. The Trillium Line schedule is just a suggestion now. I travel by Greenboro every day, sometimes more than once and the trains seem to be off schedule more than not. What will the next upgrade bring us? A train now and then? So much for timed transfers. Another reason why the Trillium Line is heading for failure.

I have already complained to my city councillor about Phase 2 of the Trillium Line. If we couldn't get the last expansion working properly (and I had predicted the problems), why should we believe the 'experts' on a much more complicated train arrangement for Phase 2?

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the downtown tunnel is reaching capacity, we better be planning another route into downtown. But remember that the 'experts' tell us that we have ample capacity for decades. And with stagnant ridership, and falling transit modal share, I think it would be a better investment to rid ourselves of unnecessary transfers to try to encourage ridership. Remember, the transfer penalty is perceived to be more than the real delay.

I find it so funny that interlining is acceptable at Lincoln Fields but not at Bayview. Isn't this a double standard? The hint here is that fixing the Trillium mess is not coming for decades. That is the real reason why interlining is not being allowed for.

Yeah, the branch to the airport. What a mess they are going to create at South Keys to facilitate that. The Trillium Line schedule is just a suggestion now. I travel by Greenboro every day, sometimes more than once and the trains seem to be off schedule more than not. What will the next upgrade bring us? A train now and then? So much for timed transfers. Another reason why the Trillium Line is heading for failure.

I have already complained to my city councillor about Phase 2 of the Trillium Line. If we couldn't get the last expansion working properly (and I had predicted the problems), why should we believe the 'experts' on a much more complicated train arrangement for Phase 2?

I remain disappointed by the general lack of vision by the city on Trillium. I think interlining makes sense from an airport-downtown perspective, but not for the current Trillium line run.
If you are traveling to Tunney's, you have to transfer at Bayview anyways. If they extend it to Gatineau and Trillium is interlined, you need to transfer if you are going Trillium-Gatineau or Gatineau-Trillium.
I think we would be missing an opportunity to extend the core outwards if we interline all the lines into one.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Nope: the number one need for mass transit within the old city is on the Rideau-Montreal corridor, a decision which has been punted to the 22nd century at the earliest.

It's unfounded statements like this that diminish the impact of your other points. We don't know what is coming in 2050, let alone two generations later in 2090.

We get the point that you're not happy that your area of town isn't being well served. My take on it is that it's kind of a reverse Goldilocks. Too dense to expropriate a grade-separated ROW cheaply, and not enough demand to justify an expensive expropriation. And this phase of transit is about building the core of network, solving the downtown congestion problem, and reducing operating expenses. The first two don't help your neighbourhood, and the last requires faith that the city will eventually improve your service. A faith that you obviously don't have.

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Not sure if the forum is broken or it's just me but I feel like I'm reading the same posts over and over again.

It's not just you.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Another symptom of a transit plan designed and built by people who don't actually use public transit.

It's not helpful to your argument to accuse people with different views of not using public transit. You can't know that. Which just raises questions about the veracity of everything else you post.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

Not really. More like eight buses at the same time every 4 minutes. Not the same thing as a bus every 30 seconds.

Even off-peak the Transitway does this, it's maddening. Before the closures, I remember trying to get a bus from downtown to St. Laurent in the midday. You'd sit there waiting for 8 minutes, then 4 buses would show up at once.

The Transitway was a lot of things... reliably frequent wasn't one of them.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the downtown tunnel is reaching capacity, we better be planning another route into downtown. But remember that the 'experts' tell us that we have ample capacity for decades.

We have plenty of capacity for passengers. More than enough for the foreseeable future. What we don't have is capacity for more trains.

The downtown tunnel has plenty of room for everyone if the Trillium line terminates at Bayview. It does not have plenty of room for everyone if the Trillium line trains run in the tunnel.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the downtown tunnel is reaching capacity, we better be planning another route into downtown. But remember that the 'experts' tell us that we have ample capacity for decades.

There's lots of capacity in its current configuration. Capacity becomes more of an issue if the tunnel (more specifically the downtown stations) is re-purposed for something it is not designed for (such as a major interlining operation that would cause congestion on the platform).

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

It's not helpful to your argument to accuse people with different views of not using public transit. You can't know that. Which just raises questions about the veracity of everything else you post.

I think he's accusing the politicians that are making these decisions of not being transit users, not other forum posters. For starters, the chair of the transit commission Stephen Blais represents a rural ward with minimal transit.

[roger1818]

The reality is, after phase 2, the Confederation line will be interlined as there will be routes to both Bayshore and Baseline. To interline the line 4 ways in the west (Bayshore, Baseline, Trillium and Gatineau) but only have one line in the east doesn't make sense.

I have said it before but the more logical thing to do would be to put tracks on the southern transitway and join the confederation line just west of Hurdman. Transfers from south to east would have to be done at Lees since the platform alignment at Hurdman won't allow the southern route to join east of it. This isn't optimal but not the end of the world either.

This would help balance the load on the eastern and western lines, thought the tide would likely be shifted to the east, but it would keep the option of a split to Gatineau at Bayview open as it would only be a 3-way split, not 4.

The other factor of course is the RendezVous LeBreton deal, as it will change everything. With the development being waling distance from the Bayview (and Pimisi) stations, Bayview will no longer be a station in the middle of nowhere and instead will become a major hub. After major events, having trains running north, south, east and west would help dissipate crowds efficiently. If only we could say the same thing about Landsdown.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There's lots of capacity in its current configuration. Capacity becomes more of an issue if the tunnel (more specifically the downtown stations) is re-purposed for something it is not designed for (such as a major interlining operation that would cause congestion on the platform).

Sounds like poor design to me. What happens if there are any delays for any reason? The downtown platforms are quickly overwhelmed? This sounds unsafe to me. What about the fire code? What happens if the platforms cannot handle the passenger load? Will we have line-ups down Queen Street and Rideau Street? What an embarrassment this will be to the city. And we know this is going to happen.

My ongoing concern is that we are building our whole transit system around one route. And there is no plan for interprovincial rapid transit at all. And this is by design, not as a temporary measure until we can get enough funding to build a second route. There are no plans to build another line even in the distant future.

This city is more than the corridor from Bayshore to Orleans.

What we are seeing is a city with blinders on. The city is planning to make people go to rapid transit rather than build rapid transit to the people. It is putting everything backwards.

Meanwhile, we see a city like Calgary about to start building its third route across the city and Edmonton (whose city council ignored transit for a generation) is starting to build its second route.

On the subject of the Trillium Line, the city cancelled the project in 2006 in order to improve the downtown component. I do not see how what we are ultimately building along the corridor is any sort of improvement. We are cobbling together a bunch of patchwork fixes on a temporary service that will serve nobody along the route well other than Carleton students. We have gotten to the point that we are spending a fortune on building extra overpasses in order to perpetuate a temporary plan that will have to be tossed in order to actually bring the route to its destination in Riverside South. Again, we are embarking on another Transitway saga, where we build something that will ultimately have to be trashed and totally rebuilt at even greater expense. I just look at the transit infrastructure that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on not that long ago that we are simply demolishing. It is a shocking waste of taxpayer money and the end result is that we fall further and further behind other cities who know what they want and incrementally build their transit systems instead of what this city continues to do, build, demolish and rebuild. Ottawa is moving nowhere fast.

I am to the point where it would make more sense to just leave the Trillium Line as it is and extend the Southeast Transitway to the airport and to Riverside South where there is already a connection to Barrhaven. Forget about these bus, train, train, train commutes and get this to a more realistic and usable plan.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the downtown tunnel is reaching capacity, we better be planning another route into downtown. But remember that the 'experts' tell us that we have ample capacity for decades. And with stagnant ridership, and falling transit modal share, I think it would be a better investment to rid ourselves of unnecessary transfers to try to encourage ridership. Remember, the transfer penalty is perceived to be more than the real delay.

I find it so funny that interlining is acceptable at Lincoln Fields but not at Bayview. Isn't this a double standard? The hint here is that fixing the Trillium mess is not coming for decades. That is the real reason why interlining is not being allowed for.

Yeah, the branch to the airport. What a mess they are going to create at South Keys to facilitate that. The Trillium Line schedule is just a suggestion now. I travel by Greenboro every day, sometimes more than once and the trains seem to be off schedule more than not. What will the next upgrade bring us? A train now and then? So much for timed transfers. Another reason why the Trillium Line is heading for failure.

I have already complained to my city councillor about Phase 2 of the Trillium Line. If we couldn't get the last expansion working properly (and I had predicted the problems), why should we believe the 'experts' on a much more complicated train arrangement for Phase 2?

Every additional interline makes the system incrementally worse, harder to manage, with less capacity, and future tough choices. That future tough choice might be in 2050 or it might be in 2070, or never if Canada stops growing. If it was my choice there wouldn't be a split at Lincoln Fields, or if you do, have an intended expiry date/tunnel use threshold, after which it fed into an upgraded Carling Line with a dedicated access to downtown .

With transfers you can get to the maximum tunnel capacity in both number of trains and number of passengers. Interlining reduces frequency by just taking time to operate switches, by creating more points of delay that are interrelated. Carrying capacity is constrained by minimum service standards on the spurs as unless there is by some miracle similar demand on the spurs.

As it is I doubt Orleans will balance demand from four spurs west of downtown. There would be short-turns at Train and/or Blair.

To be sure, this isn't a today problem. Probably not even a 25 year problem unless the population grows at an accelerated rate. But it is another instance of Ottawa's transit plan having a deliberate point of failure due to path dependency, instead of acknowledging the issue and starting to plan for a solution, even if it is very far off.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sounds like poor design to me. What happens if there are any delays for any reason? The downtown platforms are quickly overwhelmed? This sounds unsafe to me. What about the fire code? What happens if the platforms cannot handle the passenger load? Will we have line-ups down Queen Street and Rideau Street? What an embarrassment this will be to the city. And we know this is going to happen.

My ongoing concern is that we are building our whole transit system around one route. And there is no plan for interprovincial rapid transit at all. And this is by design, not as a temporary measure until we can get enough funding to build a second route. There are no plans to build another line even in the distant future.

This city is more than the corridor from Bayshore to Orleans.

What we are seeing is a city with blinders on. The city is planning to make people go to rapid transit rather than build rapid transit to the people. It is putting everything backwards.

Meanwhile, we see a city like Calgary about to start building its third route across the city and Edmonton (whose city council ignored transit for a generation) is starting to build its second route.

On the subject of the Trillium Line, the city cancelled the project in 2006 in order to improve the downtown component. I do not see how what we are ultimately building along the corridor is any sort of improvement. We are cobbling together a bunch of patchwork fixes on a temporary service that will serve nobody along the route well other than Carleton students. We have gotten to the point that we are spending a fortune on building extra overpasses in order to perpetuate a temporary plan that will have to be tossed in order to actually bring the route to its destination in Riverside South. Again, we are embarking on another Transitway saga, where we build something that will ultimately have to be trashed and totally rebuilt at even greater expense. I just look at the transit infrastructure that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on not that long ago that we are simply demolishing. It is a shocking waste of taxpayer money and the end result is that we fall further and further behind other cities who know what they want and incrementally build their transit systems instead of what this city continues to do, build, demolish and rebuild. Ottawa is moving nowhere fast.

I am to the point where it would make more sense to just leave the Trillium Line as it is and extend the Southeast Transitway to the airport and to Riverside South where there is already a connection to Barrhaven. Forget about these bus, train, train, train commutes and get this to a more realistic and usable plan.

I don't disagree with you. The province capped funding at $600M (as opposed to elsewhere in Ontario where the pay 100%, 33% or more for transit projects) and the feds wouldn't pay more than the province, so the city had to manage costs. One way to do this was to take out the features that would support future interlining such longer platforms, deeper tunnels (which means platforms can be wider because they aren't constrained by building foundations), a second set of doors (which allow for a smaller yellow strip and more standing space), and the rough-in for a Trillium connection.

I would assume there would be procedures if there are major delays (fire, etc). In most cities it means a partial or full closure.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am to the point where it would make more sense to just leave the Trillium Line as it is and extend the Southeast Transitway to the airport and to Riverside South where there is already a connection to Barrhaven. Forget about these bus, train, train, train commutes and get this to a more realistic and usable plan.

The exact same thought occurred to me this morning... this would solve all sorts of problems... single trip to airport/downtown, minimal extra expansion of Trillium line, etc. Any chance the city thought of this and left space a Hurdman to put in the required switches and tracks??

P.S... I really appreciate *all* sides of this discussion/debate. Great, intelligent and well thought out opinions all around. Maybe we should secede and form a city somewhere

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Every additional interline makes the system incrementally worse, harder to manage, with less capacity, and future tough choices. That future tough choice might be in 2050 or it might be in 2070, or never if Canada stops growing. If it was my choice there wouldn't be a split at Lincoln Fields, or if you do, have an intended expiry date/tunnel use threshold, after which it fed into an upgraded Carling Line with a dedicated access to downtown .

With transfers you can get to the maximum tunnel capacity in both number of trains and number of passengers. Interlining reduces frequency by just taking time to operate switches, by creating more points of delay that are interrelated. Carrying capacity is constrained by minimum service standards on the spurs as unless there is by some miracle similar demand on the spurs.

As it is I doubt Orleans will balance demand from four spurs west of downtown. There would be short-turns at Train and/or Blair.

To be sure, this isn't a today problem. Probably not even a 25 year problem unless the population grows at an accelerated rate. But it is another instance of Ottawa's transit plan having a deliberate point of failure due to path dependency, instead of acknowledging the issue and starting to plan for a solution, even if it is very far off.

I understand everybody's point about interlining 4 or 5 routes. This is really pushing it. And also the passenger load imbalance between east and west. But where was this discussion when we were planning things? I brought the issue of passenger load balancing years ago and everybody laughed. The 'experts' told us that it will work. But beyond that, even without interlining, you still need to deal with the passengers that are feeding into the main line. Whether we interline or not, this is still the issue. Or are we more concerned with discouraging people from using the system. That would be a shocking way of looking at things. But we see this view expressed in a round about way, just in the last couple of days. Why do anything at Bayview when few people are going downtown? But our future plans are going to direct people downtown. Well, who cares what we are planning in the future.

So what is the answer? People say we should extend the Trillium Line into Gatineau. Gatineau does not want it. Of course not. We are adding another transfer, after already adding another transfer for Rapibus. This is all unacceptable to the areas being served.

This debate should not only be about those people live along the Confederation Line. What about everybody else? Does what we are planning to build really make sense? I have been arguing that it doesn't if you require two or three transfers to get to the city centre in a city of just over 1 million people. It is a ridiculous proposition. It is also ridiculous to be arguing about transfer times. We need a reliable transit system that is easy and fast to use. And not just for those who live within walking distance of the Confederation Line.

And when we are talking about interlining, we shouldn't worry about 50 years or 70 years from now. Interlining may have a small impact on passenger capacity of the tunnel because of imbalance between routes, however, when this starts to become an issue, where are the plans for the second route?

As it stands, there is no realistic possibility of connecting Gatineau at Bayview, whether interlined or not. Adding another 25% load onto the Confederation Line at Bayview is scary, and those passengers would be destined for downtown if the plan was going to be useful to Gatineau residents and not just some trivial spur line to Terrasse de la Chaudière.

The question all goes back to the abandoned plan of 2006. That surface route into downtown to eliminate the transfer at Bayview would have got people from the south end of the city using the Trillium Line, doubling or tripling ridership and making a southward extension make more sense. Then the debate of interlining of the Confederation Line would be mute. In fact, it would have made use of the Prince of Wales Bridge more practical as well with the possibility of directing Gatineau trains into downtown. Yes, we would have 8 years of pain with buses intermingled with LRT on downtown streets but we forget that there was a plan to remove at least 25% of the buses off of Albert and Slater with all the express buses to the southeast and Barrhaven cancelled. We may say that it is faster by tunnel with a transfer at Bayview but the average Joe doesn't look at it this way. He sees that he has to get off of one train, walk to another platform and wait for another train, which as it stands does not run on a reliable schedule then hopefully connect with a local bus at the other end without a long wait. And believe me, a 15 minute wait for your local bus is an eternity when you are tired and hungry after a long day at the office. The whole time watching cars rushing by when you are not moving at all.

[MalcolmTucker]

Or are we more concerned with discouraging people from using the system.

I don't think transfers will discourage people from using the system, as they will reduce trip times, unless massive operational implementation mistakes are made. Which of course is possible!

[eemy]

One major difference with interlining at Lincoln Fields versus Bayview is that the demand on the two legs is far more symmetric while at Bayview it would be wildly asymmetric.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The reality is, after phase 2, the Confederation line will be interlined as there will be routes to both Bayshore and Baseline. To interline the line 4 ways in the west (Bayshore, Baseline, Trillium and Gatineau) but only have one line in the east doesn't make sense.

I have said it before but the more logical thing to do would be to put tracks on the southern transitway and join the confederation line just west of Hurdman. Transfers from south to east would have to be done at Lees since the platform alignment at Hurdman won't allow the southern route to join east of it. This isn't optimal but not the end of the world either.

This would help balance the load on the eastern and western lines, thought the tide would likely be shifted to the east, but it would keep the option of a split to Gatineau at Bayview open as it would only be a 3-way split, not 4.

The other factor of course is the RendezVous LeBreton deal, as it will change everything. With the development being waling distance from the Bayview (and Pimisi) stations, Bayview will no longer be a station in the middle of nowhere and instead will become a major hub. After major events, having trains running north, south, east and west would help dissipate crowds efficiently. If only we could say the same thing about Landsdown.

That is something I've considered. My solution was one of the three lines coming from the west could terminate at Tremblay (and turn back around at the Train Yards). But what you are suggesting, splitting the line at Hurdman with one heading down the South-East Transitway isn't a bad idea. You could have that line go all the way down the airport instead of complicating the Trillium with a spur.

In any case, the West and East terminus stations should not have the same service frequency/capacity as downtown (west partly solved with the Bayshore/Algonquin split). Interlining through a downtown tunnel actually is the most efficient way of building transit.

[lrt's friend]

It seems to me that many complained when no allowances were made for a future connection at Hurdman. The same who are against a connection at Bayview? The difference being that there is rail at Bayview and it will cost a mint to build it at Hurdman.

[cityguy]

From what I understand opening day is 2 years away may 5th 2018

[1overcosc]

I don't think there is an opening date yet. The P3 contract specifies a date (pretty sure it's May 25, 2018) as the project deadline; meaning RTG would have to pay penalties to the city if the system is not running by that date.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

He sees that he has to get off of one train, walk to another platform and wait for another train, which as it stands does not run on a reliable schedule then hopefully connect with a local bus at the other end without a long wait. And believe me, a 15 minute wait for your local bus is an eternity when you are tired and hungry after a long day at the office. The whole time watching cars rushing by when you are not moving at all.

This is an issue, but the transfer at Bayview has no effect on this. Just because you got a direct ride without a transfer at Bayview doesn't suddenly make that 15 minute wait for the bus any better. Similarly, having to transfer at Bayview doesn't make it worse. Local bus frequencies and interlining-vs-no-interline are completely separate issues.