Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

The history of what happened in the late 70s and early 80s must be properly understood.

LRT use in North America was in its infancy at the time. Edmonton was first and not terribly successful. Calgary came not long after and they abandoned their downtown tunnel due to cost. Both systems were funded by oil royalties, that did not exist in Ontario.

Regardless of the debate about operating versus capital costs, the capital costs to build LRT in Ottawa properly were beyond the city's ability to pay for it at the time, especially downtown. This is why the busway tunnel was also endlessly delayed.

The fact that the downtown portion was not built as well as the use of the Ottawa River Parkway allowed us to build a more robust network than we could have with rail.

With the same amount of money that we would have had available in the 1980s and 1990s, we may have ended up with an LRT network from Lincoln Fields to Hurdman or Tunney's Pasture to Blair and that's it.

We cannot assume that there was endless bucket of money available during that time period.

And the operating cost savings would not have been achieved and declining ridership of the 80s and 90s would have accelerated with a very limited network. We have to understand that the Transitways also provided a degree of operating cost savings. The more extensive use of articulated buses and the speed of service on the Transitways allowed for operating savings. If we had built a smaller rail network, the rail operating cost savings would have been offset by higher bus costs with more buses still operating in mixed traffic.

I do remember the debate between Transitways and rail at the time. Transitways won. It is history. We are now changing that decision with a very large price tag. Time will tell on this current decision.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

GoodPart of that was that they never really committed to a proper spine model - for better of for worse (a different discussion) they kept and expanded those suburban one seat one butt expresses to downtown, and worse, put them on the T-Way, clogging it to Hum-Hah.

A technicality I know, but it wasn't the transitway that was clogged, but Albert and Slater streets (unless you consider them to be part of the transitway since the transtway buses ran on them). A tunnel might have helped a bit as it would remove the issue of lights and other traffic slowing down the buses, the real issue is only so many buses will fit at a bus stop and the next batch can't arrive until the previous batch have cleared away.

Committing to a spine model would have raised mega-objections and blow-back from (pardon me) a privileged few, but would have let the T-Way be properly used to its strengths.

I don't deny that using a spine model would help reduce congestion but if you are using one, what are the T-Way's strengths, as compared to an LRT?

No, I am not objecting to running suburban expresses down the T-Way in its entirety, but they could and should have hit consolidation points to entering it, not sending them ALL down it.

I am curious how this would look? Would only certain routes go downtown and others be required to stop at the nearest T-Way station? Would you pick a few runs of each route and allow them to go downtown?

IMHO, a better option would be to use collector routes (like is currently being proposed for LRT) and then have true express buses that have no (or very few) stops before they get downtown. Of course this is all moot as the T-Way is being replaced.

The capper was, of course, the trenches and bridges for a system that was supposed to use flexible, cheap, easy, surface systems.

Of course adding trenches would blow the price out of the water. Bus trenches are much more expensive than rail trenches as you need to make them wider to account for driver error when steering. Since rail vehicles are guided by the rails, and not the driver, you only need enough extra space for vehicle sway and an emergency pathway. All of that extra excavation (and longer overpasses) costs money. Not being part of the initial proposal explains why the estimate was so much lower. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison, rail could also be run at the surface, or even embedded in the street to save on costs.

[McC]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Here you go!

you're the best.

[ortelius]

the underpass at OttawaU is open again. You go right through the construction. It'll be cool to the see the progress.

[acottawa]

This is way before my time as a resident, so I find the contributions of those that were here interesting. I think what is interesting is that what Ottawa came up with was completely unproven, the complete opposite of what other cities in Canada were doing (Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) and has not been copied by anyone else.

What is striking to me (again, as a 21st century arrival in the city) is how ridiculously overbuilt the bus infrastructure is. Some of the stations (St. Laurent, Lincoln Fields, Hurdman, Billings Bridge) are just massive and contain way more platforms than they need (or could ever need given the capacity constraints on the system). Some local stations (e.g. Cyrville and much of the Southeast Transitway) could have been much simpler and cheaper in their design and large sections did not need to be fully grade separated. I take your point that there were financial constraints (although I believe the provincial government pre-Harris paid 75% of the capital costs for transit projects) but spending could have been done a lot more efficiently, which could have allowed them to build the bus tunnel first (or decide a bus tunnel wasn't practical and look to rail projects).

To me, given the known best practices at the time, a skytrain type of system would have been the best option for Ottawa in the 80s.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by acottawa

...how ridiculously overbuilt the bus infrastructure is.

- And yet, nowhere is there proper shelter for the transit users in waiting.
Very bad design.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me, given the known best practices at the time, a skytrain type of system would have been the best option for Ottawa in the 80s.

The provincial government did actually propose just that in the early 1980s.

The original version of SkyTrain technology, called ICTS, was invented by the Ontario government for intended use as a low cost transit solution and there were plans to build networks in suburban Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa. The Scarborough RT line was the first one built; but after it ended up not being as successful was hoped, the whole idea was abandoned, and the government sold ICTS to Bombardier who reshaped it into the SkyTrain system that Vancouver bought.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

What is striking to me (again, as a 21st century arrival in the city) is how ridiculously overbuilt the bus infrastructure is. Some of the stations (St. Laurent, Lincoln Fields, Hurdman, Billings Bridge) are just massive and contain way more platforms than they need (or could ever need given the capacity constraints on the system). Some local stations (e.g. Cyrville and much of the Southeast Transitway) could have been much simpler and cheaper in their design and large sections did not need to be fully grade separated.

The same is about to be true of a bunch of the LRT stations, and, as a further consequence, we're about to get stations that simply to not respond to Ottawa's climatic challenges, especially the summertime ones.

[McC]

"nowhere"? lots of stations have closed (and heated in winter) sections; shade can be harder to find in the summer at some stations.

[McC]

Some problems with the history of the Transitway include:
The big lie at it's creation: Haydon and others promised that it was being designed for conversion to rail once Ottawa grew to a city of a million (he admitted this was a lie when he came out of retirement to run for mayor of the 900K+ City of Ottawa as a single-issue candidate against conversion).

Over-capitalizing and over-engineering the system (especially the Southeast Transitway, which we are now orphaning) was tied into this.

That we built an innovative system (I admit that it was) and then refused to adopt any new operational innovations that followed in places like Bogota and Curitiba and others, that would have kept it performing better up to present day. The O-Train had those pay and display parking meters selling tickets at every station, why not the Transitway? Because reasons. Honour system fare paid zones in every station for transaction-free boarding. Buses with larger doors, always opening at every stop (instead: ability to skip stations is touted as a feature, and anyone who has used undersubscribed stations like Train and Pleasant Park has watched in-service buses fly by them without stopping). Cool "software-based guidance systems" (as opposed to guided transport, like rails) like they have on the TEOR in Rouen (sorry, French only: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_est-ouest_rouennais#Guidage_optique) that might make for smoother rides. High-floor platforms before they had low floor buses. Open access to the GPS data took forever. Next bus arrival displays that you find in so many other systems. the list goes on and on.

The terrible job the planners did at spacing stations, situating stations, integrating stations into communities, etc. See for example, the huge gaps between stations in some areas (on the West Side, not just past Dominion, but also between Tunney's and Westboro),coupled with ridiculously close stations like Dominion and all along the Southeast Transitway. How lengthy stations like Tunney's Pasture only have one entrance at one far end of the platforms. How stations like Heron, Billings Bridge and Bayview were designed to thwart walk up traffic to the greatest extent possible without resorting to landmines and electric razorwire fencing. How the Transitway suddenly turned into a local bus route stopping 8 times in the 2.5 kilometres from Lebreton and Laurier (stop at Good Companions, stop again at Bay, Stop again at Lyon/Kent, skip a bit all the way to O'Connor, stop again at Metcalfe and MacKing, and finally Laurier; so now we're over-correcting with too few stations between Lebreton and uOttawa). We can go on.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Regardless of the debate about operating versus capital costs, the capital costs to build LRT in Ottawa properly were beyond the city's ability to pay for it at the time, especially downtown.

Yet I gather the T-way ended up being 10x over budget and twice what the LRT was estimated to cost (I don't have a reference so if anyone else can either confirm or deny this it would be appreciated). If so, the city did have more than enough money to pay for LRT, they just wanted to make it look like they couldn't.

The fact that the downtown portion was not built as well as the use of the Ottawa River Parkway allowed us to build a more robust network than we could have with rail.

I disagree with your wording. It allowed them to extend it further into the suburbs. I don't think it is more robust.

With the same amount of money that we would have had available in the 1980s and 1990s, we may have ended up with an LRT network from Lincoln Fields to Hurdman or Tunney's Pasture to Blair and that's it.

That isn't much different than what is currently being built in phase I.

And the operating cost savings would not have been achieved and declining ridership of the 80s and 90s would have accelerated with a very limited network.

Hard to know for sure. The lure of rail could equally have decelerated the declining ridership. It may also have encouraged more people to live closer to downtown instead of sprawling beyond the greenbelt.

We have to understand that the Transitways also provided a degree of operating cost savings. The more extensive use of articulated buses and the speed of service on the Transitways allowed for operating savings.

The T-Way may have provided more cost savings compared to no transit infrastructure, but that doesn't mean it would have been more than LRT.

If we had built a smaller rail network, the rail operating cost savings would have been offset by higher bus costs with more buses still operating in mixed traffic.

More buses may have been operating in mixed traffic, but the T-Way created the most expensive part of the transit network, "express" buses. The problem with "express" buses (by OCTranspo's definition) is that in many cases the route is so long for the bus to get to the end of its run that there isn't time for it to get back out to the suburbs (or downtown in the evening) to do another run, so it just heads back to the garage. This means you end up with $100,000 buses that only do 2 runs a day, 5 days a week. On top of that, the drivers haven't worked their minimum shift length (according to the collective agreement), so they get paid for those extra hours, even though they weren't working. With a spine based system (be it LRT or BRT), not only is the route shorter to get to the nearest station, but the bus is closer to the start of its run, so there is a greater chance of it being able to do 2 or 3 runs per "rush hour" (4-6 runs per day). A much more efficient use of both bus and driver. True those passengers need to be passed off to another vehicle, but that vehicle will likely have a higher capacity and be closer to its maximum capacity plus have a high speed route and will likely also be able to get multiple runs in during a shift.

[swimmer_spe]

Here are my 2 cents.

The Transitway itself is not a bad idea or design. There are 2 problems, downtown and bus routing/timing.

If they had made a transit mall out of the Central Transitway route the bunching downtown might not have been a problem since there would be no other vehicles. They could have positioned stops better too.

If we look at the 3 RT lines in Toronto, we see that normally, they go through to all stations. Sometimes they end at the yards, but that is usually after the rush hour and it is to take that train out of service. As I understood it, the buses would not do this. They would turn back partway. What they should have done is combine routes that go on the South(east/west) and East/West transitways to have them extend back into the communities. By having them not do that, or changing numbers midway, you loose the flow that you could easily achieve with that.

Mississauga and Winnipeg are all building Transitways. Hopefully they learn from Ottawa's mistakes. The idea is good, but the implementation failed.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by roger1818

More buses may have been operating in mixed traffic, but the T-Way created the most expensive part of the transit network, "express" buses. The problem with "express" buses (by OCTranspo's definition) is that in many cases the route is so long for the bus to get to the end of its run that there isn't time for it to get back out to the suburbs (or downtown in the evening) to do another run, so it just heads back to the garage. This means you end up with $100,000 buses that only do 2 runs a day, 5 days a week. On top of that, the drivers haven't worked their minimum shift length (according to the collective agreement), so they get paid for those extra hours, even though they weren't working. With a spine based system (be it LRT or BRT), not only is the route shorter to get to the nearest station, but the bus is closer to the start of its run, so there is a greater chance of it being able to do 2 or 3 runs per "rush hour" (4-6 runs per day). A much more efficient use of both bus and driver. True those passengers need to be passed off to another vehicle, but that vehicle will likely have a higher capacity and be closer to its maximum capacity plus have a high speed route and will likely also be able to get multiple runs in during a shift.

I have to wonder how much that would actually save because between downtown and where they leave the transitway those expresses buses are often packed. So basically each express bus needs one spine bus and then still needs the local bus. Maybe having a couple more chances would help spread people out, but I feel most of the saved expense would come from reduced demand, not great efficiency (the risk of pass by at the transfer from the local route to the spine route seems fairly high considering how crowded the system is).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

"nowhere"? lots of stations have closed (and heated in winter) sections; shade can be harder to find in the summer at some stations.

Useable shade can be IMPOSSIBLE to find at MANY stations, including the new temporary Hurdman and new temporary Baseline. (There's often useless shade, in that, yes, you can cower under the shelter roof, but only at the expense of wallowing in greenhouse-effect heated air.)

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

Open access to the GPS data took forever.

That was a political decision, which impacted the regular bus system as well as the bus crappid transit network. And there are still significant problems with it, including the fact that many drivers choose to not turn on their units, making the real-time data unavailable. (It also seems to collapse in wet weather quite often.)

The terrible job the planners did at spacing stations, situating stations, integrating stations into communities, etc. See for example, the huge gaps between stations in some areas (on the West Side, not just past Dominion, but also between Tunney's and Westboro),coupled with ridiculously close stations like Dominion and all along the Southeast Transitway.

If you gap-filled between Tunney's and Westboro, you'd end up with the same stop frequency you decry as "ridiculous" at Dominion (which serves a very different purpose from Westboro, and was an overdue addition to the system) and on the SE Transitway.

How lengthy stations like Tunney's Pasture only have one entrance at one far end of the platforms. How stations like Heron, Billings Bridge and Bayview were designed to thwart walk up traffic to the greatest extent possible without resorting to landmines and electric razorwire fencing. How the Transitway suddenly turned into a local bus route stopping 8 times in the 2.5 kilometres from Lebreton and Laurier (stop at Good Companions, stop again at Bay, Stop again at Lyon/Kent, skip a bit all the way to O'Connor, stop again at Metcalfe and MacKing, and finally Laurier; so now we're over-correcting with too few stations between Lebreton and uOttawa). We can go on.

Which of those stops would you eliminate, and why?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Mississauga and Winnipeg are all building Transitways. Hopefully they learn from Ottawa's mistakes. The idea is good, but the implementation failed.

Winnipeg doesn't seem to be.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I have to wonder how much that would actually save because between downtown and where they leave the transitway those expresses buses are often packed. So basically each express bus needs one spine bus and then still needs the local bus.

Not if the connector buses are standard 40 foot buses (to allow for higher frequencies despite lower demand) and the T-Way buses are articulated (with close to double the capacity). With LRT, the capacity will be much higher than articulated buses.

I'm also not convinced that all of the express buses are packed prior to reaching the first T-Way station (or leaving it in the evening). In many cases that first T-Way station is a park and ride and the buses fill up with people from there. Also, the buses aren't as full near the beginning and end of rush hour, creating more room for efficiency.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Winnipeg doesn't seem to be.

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/major-projects/rapid-transit/

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

http://winnipegtransit.com/en/major-projects/rapid-transit/

And?

Like I said: Winnipeg is not learning any of the hard lessons Ottawa did with bus crappid transit. Their system is being designed along much the same 1970s-80s principles.

[MalcolmTucker]

Back when there were serious discussions of a bus tunnel there must have been some discussion / cost comparison done with Seattle's project. Not sure how long they had it but. The stations are pretty efficient with all off board payments even on many surface routes.