Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when Toronto built it's subways, or Montreal built it's Metro, or Calgary Built it's C-Train, or Edmonton built it's LRT or Vancouver built it's Skytrain, there was no time savings?

Seriously? You are going to argue that because it stops at every stop that it will be slower?

Well, I guess we should have stuck with the buses.

Those cities did not have pre-existing, grade separated busways. The speed increases were from the grade-separation, not from the choice of technology.

An express bus leaving from Trim is not going to get to Blair any slower than an LRT vehicle.

LRT has more capacity than a bus, so in a situation where a bus system is approaching capacity (i.e. the central transitway) it makes sense to convert, but in a situation where the BRT is nowhere near capacity (Orleans, Kanata, etc.) there is little benefit to be had, except saving one transfer.

[ortelius]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.
....knew it...... Joanne Chianello, April 21, CBC :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ott...may-7-2018-now-appears-delayed-1.4077136

and FYI...she has been tracking the LRT since many years, previously at the Citizen.
Anotherwords....why can't they just say it - a lot less grief for everybody long-term.
EnJoy!

It's probably prudent not to give an exact date at this point, giving the delays. Plus, you never know, there can be other issues along the way. It's a complex project. But we'll get there!

the current work schedule for this year for those who missed it:
http://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/wp-...ad_2017_EN-final-web-file-2017-03-16.pdf

[lrt's friend]

At least in the case of the Trillium Line, buses run faster than trains. Of course, that is a result of the inadequate design of the Trillium Line.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ortelius

It's probably prudent not to give an exact date at this point, giving the delays. Plus, you never know, there can be other issues along the way. It's a complex project. But we'll get there!

the current work schedule for this year for those who missed it:
http://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/wp-...ad_2017_EN-final-web-file-2017-03-16.pdf

Looks like the 5 eastern stations will be tested, verified and commissioned before the winter. It would be nice if they could do some testing with humans (it would certainly improve access to the train station).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when Toronto built it's subways, or Montreal built it's Metro, or Calgary Built it's C-Train, or Edmonton built it's LRT or Vancouver built it's Skytrain, there was no time savings?

None of those had busways. Any time you separate transit from the rest of traffic, you will save time.

Well, I guess we should have stuck with the buses.

No. Trains offer much higher capacity. This was very important in the central core. The southern transitway is well below capacity, so that isn't an issue.

The other big problem with converting the southern transitway to LRT is, siimilar to the plan to extend the Trillium line, you are adding an extra connection during peak periods when Connexion buses travel straight to Hurdman. Since Hurdman station was not designed to allow a split, a transfer would be required there regardless (similar to Bayview).

[1overcosc]

May 7? Seems kinda odd to start on a Monday two weeks after a normal seasonal schedule change.

My money is on Sunday, June 24th, 2018 as the start date for LRT service.

At this point though it's up in the air. The sinkhole clearly made them fall behind schedule but judging by the stories of how crowded the work sites in the tunnel are, RTG is working like hell to try to keep things on schedule, as to be expected from a P3 contract with financial penalties attached to deadlines.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Those cities did not have pre-existing, grade separated busways. The speed increases were from the grade-separation, not from the choice of technology.

An express bus leaving from Trim is not going to get to Blair any slower than an LRT vehicle.

LRT has more capacity than a bus, so in a situation where a bus system is approaching capacity (i.e. the central transitway) it makes sense to convert, but in a situation where the BRT is nowhere near capacity (Orleans, Kanata, etc.) there is little benefit to be had, except saving one transfer.

Agreed. In the central core, the very high crowds made BRT fundamentally problematic, not just in terms of capacity, but also in terms of travel time (because the huge number of buses led to delays at stations--this was especially bad at spots like Hurdman). On the Phase 1 section between Blair and Tunney's the LRT will be a helluva lot faster than the BRT was.

But pretty much everywhere else travel times will be more or less the same, probably. A slight edge to LRT in most areas, probably, but not more than a minute or two for most trips, I bet.

Getting an extension out to Lincoln Fields was critical (Tunney's being way too far east to serve as a proper terminus), but the rest of the Confederation Line extensions are really unnecessary, IMO. Instead of spending $3.6B on the Phase 2 package, I would have spent the $1B or whatever it would take to get to Lincoln Fields, and then spent the remaining $2.6B on other projects outside the Confederation Line.

I would have made the full LRT upgrade for Trillium Line, which would cost $1.1B, according to the city's TMP.

The remaining $1.5B I would spend on a smattering of transit priority and BRT projects throughout the city. $1.5B could probably get the Baseline BRT extended along the Heron/Walkley/St. Laurent axis (a key mobility link to an economically disadvantaged area of the city), a generous transit priority system in the inner city core, a median BRT on Carling, a BRT route to the General Hospital, finishing up that BRT link in the south end, etc.

I think that would have been a much better $3.6B transit plan than Phase 2 as presented.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It seems like a lot of money to spend to save one transfer. The ride itself is unlikely to be any faster (both have comparable maximum speeds) and may be a little slower (because LRT vehicles have to make every stop). Also, because the LRT capacities are so much higher, the service will likely to be less frequent than the bus, so the overall journey time will probably be longer.

The LRT will probably edge out to being a little bit faster (though we're talking about a few percentage points, probably a difference so small it's irrelevant in the real world), due to a higher practical interstation maximum speed (due to faster acceleration and better curve-taking skills, the LRT will spend more of its run actually hitting its maximum speed than the buses did), lower dwell times at busy stations. This is mostly offset by the need to hit every stop (though it should be noted that if no one is getting on the dwell time will be very minimal, probably 5 seconds or so) as well as the addition of stops (Cleary, New Orchard, Orleans Drive, etc.). My guess is that for a trip from Orleans to Blair it will be something like 7 minutes on the LRT versus 8 minutes on the bus. So effectively equivalent.

The capacity/frequency is an interesting one. The city's planned off-peak frequencies for Phase 1 are actually more frequent than the pre-2015 Transitway buses. In some time periods (like weekend mornings), considerably so. With higher capacity per vehicle AND more vehicles, the trains off-peak will probably be a lot emptier than the buses were. I do wonder if that will create a political motivation to trim frequencies. However, the city is likely limited in how much it can do that due to the nature of the P3 contract (with fewer trains running there will be less maintenance work for them to do, which could open the city up to a lawsuit), however this will become less of a practical limit over time, as with the extension of the network and the likely need to add more trains at peak there will be more opportunity to go to RTG and offer them more work to compensate.

The LRT fleet is designed to allow for automated operation in the future. So hopefully, when the city decides off-peak trains are "too empty", they decide to trim costs by moving forward with automation rather than cutting frequencies.

[ortelius]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The LRT will probably edge out to being a little bit faster (though we're talking about a few percentage points, probably a difference so small it's irrelevant in the real world), due to a higher practical interstation maximum speed (due to faster acceleration and better curve-taking skills, the LRT will spend more of its run actually hitting its maximum speed than the buses did), lower dwell times at busy stations. This is mostly offset by the need to hit every stop (though it should be noted that if no one is getting on the dwell time will be very minimal, probably 5 seconds or so) as well as the addition of stops (Cleary, New Orchard, Orleans Drive, etc.). My guess is that for a trip from Orleans to Blair it will be something like 7 minutes on the LRT versus 8 minutes on the bus. So effectively equivalent.

The capacity/frequency is an interesting one. The city's planned off-peak frequencies for Phase 1 are actually more frequent than the pre-2015 Transitway buses. In some time periods (like weekend mornings), considerably so. With higher capacity per vehicle AND more vehicles, the trains off-peak will probably be a lot emptier than the buses were. I do wonder if that will create a political motivation to trim frequencies. However, the city is likely limited in how much it can do that due to the nature of the P3 contract (with fewer trains running there will be less maintenance work for them to do, which could open the city up to a lawsuit), however this will become less of a practical limit over time, as with the extension of the network and the likely need to add more trains at peak there will be more opportunity to go to RTG and offer them more work to compensate.

The LRT fleet is designed to allow for automated operation in the future. So hopefully, when the city decides off-peak trains are "too empty", they decide to trim costs by moving forward with automation rather than cutting frequencies.

The two other improvements that come from switching to LRT are quite important (to me anyway), and would be enough for me to justify the switch to LRT wherever possible:

1 - Reduction in air and noise pollution.

2 - The level of comfort. I find trains so much more comfortable that buses. It'll be nice for once to take transit and have quality in that regard. Transit users deserve not just the minimal, but something good. Maybe even some drivers will be enticed to take transit sometimes.

I know there will still be a lot of buses all over the city (just like in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary), but at least it's a start. It's Protopia as defined by Kevin Kelly:
http://kk.org/thetechnium/protopia/

And I like to see the positives, because being negative sounds like a lot of work no?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when Toronto built it's subways, or Montreal built it's Metro, or Calgary Built it's C-Train, or Edmonton built it's LRT or Vancouver built it's Skytrain, there was no time savings?

Seriously? You are going to argue that because it stops at every stop that it will be slower?

Well, I guess we should have stuck with the buses.

I know the City BSed about how the LRT will make trips faster, when on an average day, there won't be much difference. But we have to take into consideration all sorts of issues that slow down the central Transitway from time to time like bad weather, accidents, protests, parades, so on and so forth.

Ultimately, the Confederation Line project was about increasing capacity of our suburban-centric rapid transit system. We all know it, but the City will never admit it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ortelius

The two other improvements that come from switching to LRT are quite important (to me anyway), and would be enough for me to justify the switch to LRT wherever possible:

1 - Reduction in air and noise pollution.

For most of the proposed phases it is a reduction in air and noise pollution next to an 8 lane highway, so I would tend to think it wouldn't be noticeable to most people.

[lrt's friend]

I think the pollution is overblown especially sound pollution. Certainly buses are nothing like back in the 1960s when they diesel belching stink machines. I know there is still significant pollution but nothing like back then.

On the sound issue, hmmmm, I always questioned how much better electric trains really are. It is steel wheels on steel rails and there can be racket and I have heard it in various cities and on videos, even modern LRT trains can squeal (I watched a video of an Edmonton train and was so thankful I didn't have to put up with that squealing every 5 minutes) and I have heard it as the Trillium Line is running by and it can be worse than a bus.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Agreed. In the central core, the very high crowds made BRT fundamentally problematic, not just in terms of capacity, but also in terms of travel time (because the huge number of buses led to delays at stations--this was especially bad at spots like Hurdman). On the Phase 1 section between Blair and Tunney's the LRT will be a helluva lot faster than the BRT was.

But pretty much everywhere else travel times will be more or less the same, probably. A slight edge to LRT in most areas, probably, but not more than a minute or two for most trips, I bet.

Getting an extension out to Lincoln Fields was critical (Tunney's being way too far east to serve as a proper terminus), but the rest of the Confederation Line extensions are really unnecessary, IMO. Instead of spending $3.6B on the Phase 2 package, I would have spent the $1B or whatever it would take to get to Lincoln Fields, and then spent the remaining $2.6B on other projects outside the Confederation Line.

I would have made the full LRT upgrade for Trillium Line, which would cost $1.1B, according to the city's TMP.

The remaining $1.5B I would spend on a smatt<script id="gpt-impl-0.3792920980141666" src="https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/gpt/pubads_impl_114.js"></script>ering of transit priority and BRT projects throughout the city. $1.5B could probably get the Baseline BRT extended along the Heron/Walkley/St. Laurent axis (a key mobility link to an economically disadvantaged area of the city), a generous transit priority system in the inner city core, a median BRT on Carling, a BRT route to the General Hospital, finishing up that BRT link in the south end, etc.

I think that would have been a much better $3.6B transit plan than Phase 2 as presented.

You are really making my point. LRT has become a political football and it has been all along.

We are not making wise decisions on how to spend our transit capital money effectively that will attract the most new ridership. Rebuilding the Transitways except in that critical central area will not significantly speed up service but will cost a pile of money.

So we spend everything to send trains out to Cumberland and to the far reaches of Kanata where there is no need for a train every 3 minutes, while more important transit improvements are ignored.

We build an airport spur that will not deliver effective service knowing it will run at a big loss while a more effective plan would at least contain that cost a little bit by providing a service that more people might want to use.

I have to say that our transit decision making has greatly deteriorated since the 2006 debacle. Up to that point, our decisions were mostly about attracting new ridership and improving service (which go hand and hand) and since then, it has been about who has the most political clout and how we can replace the Transitways the cheapest way possible. That is why the Orleans extension is following the cheap route along the 174 instead of serving the new retail centre of Orleans which is along Innes Road.

[Kitchissippi]

The cost to build and operate the LRT is less than what it would cost to keep, maintain and operate the old BRT system over time with all its deficiencies. Although $2.1 billion might seem like a lot of money, within a couple of decades, that same money would have been spent on a do-little approach without solving anything. That was a key point in the business plan.

OC Transpo's annual budget is already around half a billion, with labour being a huge chunk and main reason for rising costs.

[SF Thomas]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I know the City BSed about how the LRT will make trips faster, when on an average day, there won't be much difference. But we have to take into consideration all sorts of issues that slow down the central Transitway from time to time like bad weather, accidents, protests, parades, so on and so forth.

Ultimately, the Confederation Line project was about increasing capacity of our suburban-centric rapid transit system. We all know it, but the City will never admit it.

I think the time savings may depend where you live and your destination. For people that live near the Transitway downtown or that commute through downtown and have a destination near the transitway/LRT line (especially at peak periods) there will likely be significant time savings.

This will mainly be from not having to run transit in mixed traffic, getting slowed down at lights or dealing with buses being full and having to wait for the next one. For suburban riders only commuting into/out of the core though, it will be less significant. Psychologically I think the time savings may also be more noticeable for people with shorter commutes. A time savings of 5 minutes might seem like a bigger deal to someone with a 15 minute commute, than someone with a 45 minute one.

There is also the fact to consider that by fixing the capacity issue commutes will be shorter 10 years from now relative to what they would be if we had kept the same bus system setup downtown and continued to do nothing.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The cost to build and operate the LRT is less than what it would cost to keep, maintain and operate the old BRT system over time with all its deficiencies. Although $2.1 billion might seem like a lot of money, within a couple of decades, that same money would have been spent on a do-little approach without solving anything. That was a key point in the business plan.

OC Transpo's annual budget is already around half a billion, with labour being a huge chunk and main reason for rising costs.

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that Phase 1 is a bad idea. I think Phase 1 was/is desperately needed, as is the extension to Lincoln Fields. What I question is the wisdom of extensions beyond that, especially beyond the Greenbelt, where demand is lower and the excessively high operating cost isn't as much of a factor.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that Phase 1 is a bad idea. I think Phase 1 was/is desperately needed, as is the extension to Lincoln Fields. What I question is the wisdom of extensions beyond that, especially beyond the Greenbelt, where demand is lower and the excessively high operating cost isn't as much of a factor.

I think Bayshore isn't too big a stretch, there's decent density around there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

I think the time savings may depend where you live and your destination. For people that live near the Transitway downtown or that commute through downtown and have a destination near the transitway/LRT line (especially at peak periods) there will likely be significant time savings.

This will mainly be from not having to run transit in mixed traffic, getting slowed down at lights or dealing with buses being full and having to wait for the next one. For suburban riders only commuting into/out of the core though, it will be less significant. Psychologically I think the time savings may also be more noticeable for people with shorter commutes. A time savings of 5 minutes might seem like a bigger deal to someone with a 15 minute commute, than someone with a 45 minute one.

There is also the fact to consider that by fixing the capacity issue commutes will be shorter 10 years from now relative to what they would be if we had kept the same bus system setup downtown and continued to do nothing.

It is true that commute times will improve if you can make your entire trip on the Confederation Line. Nobody is denying that.

Also, there is no question that without fixing downtown, commute times would have further deteriorated.

What the concern is that building LRT beyond where it actually will provide further time savings.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The cost to build and operate the LRT is less than what it would cost to keep, maintain and operate the old BRT system over time with all its deficiencies. Although $2.1 billion might seem like a lot of money, within a couple of decades, that same money would have been spent on a do-little approach without solving anything. That was a key point in the business plan.

OC Transpo's annual budget is already around half a billion, with labour being a huge chunk and main reason for rising costs.

The cost of operating buses is increasing because average trip distances are increasing. At the same time, we are effectively eliminating zone fares.

As the city sprawls out further and further, any cost savings from LRT will eventually eaten up as trips continue to get longer.

Yes, LRT helps but we need zone fares as well. Why should someone travelling from Stittsville pay the same as someone travelling the length of Elgin Street?

As fares continue to increase to cover those long trips, we price out those who travel short distances. In other words, we push away the people who are cheapest to serve.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Bayshore isn't too big a stretch, there's decent density around there.

While I don't disagree with 1overcosc that Lincoln Fields would have been a good Western terminus for the LRT (optimally it should have been done in Stage 1 if it weren't for political issues), I also agree that Bayshore and Baseline (as it serves Algonquin Collage) aren't too big a stretch. Beyond that from a rider's perspective the LRT should not be extended beyond the Greenbelt in any direction (though a good extension to the airport would be beneficial).

The real reason why OC Transpo wants extensions to Orleans (and later Kanata) is to save money. The Blair to Orleans extension is relatively inexpensive and in peak periods each train along that stretch will likely save having to run 4 or 5 buses along the 174. This will not only save money in labour and fuel, but will also allow for route consolidation and better utilization of bus infrastructure (buses spending less time dead heading back to the beginning of their route, or worse, back to the garage after only a couple runs). On top of that, the city gets 2 extra lanes on the 174 for minimal extra cost out of the deal.

I suspect the main reason Barrhaven is being pushed off is the stretch between Knoxdale and Hunt Club will be a nightmare. I also think there is something funny going on with the Tanger Outlet, but that is a whole other story.