O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[lrt's friend]

We are seeing this with LRT too. Stations are not being built under streets but to one side or the other and sometimes a significant distance away.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We are seeing this with LRT too. Stations are not being built under streets but to one side or the other and sometimes a significant distance away.

True, but this is usually to accommodate historic Transitway station locations or big bus loops that OC Transpo loves (Lincoln Fields, Moodie, Baseline, and I think the new Earl Armstrong is designed like this). We are at least getting some stations under or very close to the major roadways, like Iris, Pinecrest is close, and pretty much all of the eastern extension. They also show the "possible future stations" between Limebank and Earl Armstrong as directly on future collector roads.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I'd agree with that (and I agree overall that the Transitway should have been extended), but the number of buses will grow as Riverside South and Letrim develop. I wouldn't be suprised if in 20 years they need 200-250 buses per day south of the Airport.

But that is well within the capacity of the existing transitway. They were running 180 buses per hour downtown before anyone thought upgrading the system was necessary.

[lrt's friend]

We need to move away from the mindset of building Transitways and then convert it to LRT later. In the long run this is very costly (we end up rebuilding far more than we originally think) and it is extremely disruptive to the transit system during the transition. Look at all the delays during construction (and loss of ridership) and the extra costs of relocating buses temporarily. If we are building a Transitway in the future, it must be permanent. If we are thinking that we will upgrade even a generation away, we should be building LRT from the get go. Look at the Moodie extension. Good grief, what a waste to build a Transitway for just a couple of years.

[Arcologist]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to move away from the mindset of building Transitways and then convert it to LRT later. In the long run this is very costly (we end up rebuilding far more than we originally think) and it is extremely disruptive to the transit system during the transition. Look at all the delays during construction (and loss of ridership) and the extra costs of relocating buses temporarily. If we are building a Transitway in the future, it must be permanent. If we are thinking that we will upgrade even a generation away, we should be building LRT from the get go. Look at the Moodie extension. Good grief, what a waste to build a Transitway for just a couple of years.

I completely agree re: the Moodie extension. What a waste!

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to move away from the mindset of building Transitways and then convert it to LRT later. In the long run this is very costly (we end up rebuilding far more than we originally think) and it is extremely disruptive to the transit system during the transition. Look at all the delays during construction (and loss of ridership) and the extra costs of relocating buses temporarily. If we are building a Transitway in the future, it must be permanent. If we are thinking that we will upgrade even a generation away, we should be building LRT from the get go. Look at the Moodie extension. Good grief, what a waste to build a Transitway for just a couple of years.

I completely agree with this

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We need to move away from the mindset of building Transitways and then convert it to LRT later. In the long run this is very costly (we end up rebuilding far more than we originally think) and it is extremely disruptive to the transit system during the transition. Look at all the delays during construction (and loss of ridership) and the extra costs of relocating buses temporarily. If we are building a Transitway in the future, it must be permanent. If we are thinking that we will upgrade even a generation away, we should be building LRT from the get go. Look at the Moodie extension. Good grief, what a waste to build a Transitway for just a couple of years.

It depends how much grade separation is involved. If it is a fully grade separated transitway, I agree with you and there is no point building it if it will be replaced in 10 or 15 years (30 years isn't so bad though). If it is at grade, the initial investment is small and much of it can be reused.

The Moodie busway is a bit of a funny case in that they weren't expecting it to be upgraded for at least another 15 years and they needed it now. Would it have been better to wait a few years and build it as LRT right away, yes, but I don't think much money is being lost by doing it this way as much of the initial investment will act as a cost savings on the LRT construction.

[lrt's friend]

The Moodie extension was a change of mind. How much money was spent planning a busway, then to reconfigure for LRT? They realized that the cost of extending from Bayshore to Moodie was not that much. I think this will apply anywhere when we start building LRT through greenfield areas. The price differential is not that much especially if we are planning grade separation either way. Why would we even consider building busways if it is already an extension of LRT that we are already planning. It is stupidity.

I am also thinking about Baseline BRT. If we think this may switch to LRT someday, what a mess we will be creating during the conversion.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Moodie extension was a change of mind. How much money was spent planning a busway, then to reconfigure for LRT? They realized that the cost of extending from Bayshore to Moodie was not that much. I think this will apply anywhere when we start building LRT through greenfield areas. The price differential is not that much especially if we are planning grade separation either way. Why would we even consider building busways if it is already an extension of LRT that we are already planning. It is stupidity.

I am also thinking about Baseline BRT. If we think this may switch to LRT someday, what a mess we will be creating during the conversion.

I don't think the Baseline BRT will be converted within the next 50 years at least. Maybe never. It has a couple design flaws, but overall is a very good use of the BRT mode, and improves utilization of the southeast transitway.

On the other hand, Cumberland BRT corridor should maybe be reassessed with LRT technology.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I don't think the Baseline BRT will be converted within the next 50 years at least. Maybe never. It has a couple design flaws, but overall is a very good use of the BRT mode, and improves utilization of the southeast transitway.

I agree.

On the other hand, Cumberland BRT corridor should maybe be reassessed with LRT technology.

A Cumbarland LRT route could eventually be connected to a Montreal Rd and Rideau St. LRT route to provide direct service to downtown.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

especially if we are planning grade separation either way.

By enlarge the Moode BRT line is not grade separated as only one off-ramp was grade separated from it but otherwise uses the Moodie interchange. It has an at grade crossing with Acres Rd. The most expensive bits were the sound barrier (usable by LRT) and the off-ramp grade separation (also usable by LRT). Even most of the ground preparation is usable by LRT, they will have to rip up the asphalt, so that is wasted, but not terribly expensive.

[lrt's friend]

Cumberland-Orleans South LRT needs to be the balancing branch for the Baseline-Barrhaven LRT branch

Another cool idea is to make the Baseline-Barrhaven route a circle connecting to Riverside South and via the Southeast Transitway to Hurdman. We already have the corridor between Barrhaven Town Centre and Riverside South. Too cool for our planners and politicians however.

The Southeast Transitway conversion is on the radar of some of our politicians that I have spoken with given the failure to fully build out the Trillium Line properly.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Cumberland-Orleans South LRT needs to be the balancing branch for the Baseline-Barrhaven LRT branch

Another cool idea is to make the Baseline-Barrhaven route a circle connecting to Riverside South and via the Southeast Transitway to Hurdman. We already have the corridor between Barrhaven Town Centre and Riverside South. Too cool for our planners and politicians however.

The Southeast Transitway conversion is on the radar of some of our politicians that I have spoken with given the failure to fully build out the Trillium Line properly.

How about LRT after Rideau station under Rideau St. and Montreal Road to balance the split in the west. After it meets us with the Confederation line again it could go to Innes or somewhere else further east and south?

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Cumberland-Orleans South LRT needs to be the balancing branch for the Baseline-Barrhaven LRT branch

Another cool idea is to make the Baseline-Barrhaven route a circle connecting to Riverside South and via the Southeast Transitway to Hurdman. We already have the corridor between Barrhaven Town Centre and Riverside South. Too cool for our planners and politicians however.

The Southeast Transitway conversion is on the radar of some of our politicians that I have spoken with given the failure to fully build out the Trillium Line properly.

I can see decent linkage potential with the Innes BRT, Baseline BRT and maybe even the Kanata N-S BRT lines. Would offer a good solution for cross-city connection in more southern neighbourhoods.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But that is well within the capacity of the existing transitway. They were running 180 buses per hour downtown before anyone thought upgrading the system was necessary.

They only started thinking that probably a decade too late.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Since LINT 41 trains used on the Trillium line are more expensive to operate than a bus (they use more fuel and I assume the engineers are paid more than a bus driver), the only way you will save money is if we can greatly reduce the number of buses in operation.

Currently on weekdays there are about 90 round trip trains a day on the Trillium line and I don't see that changing significantly after stage 2. The only regular buses that run south of the airport are the 93 (46 round trips), 99 (42 round trips) and 189 (7 trips to/from Greenboro). That totals 95 round trips. From that I would say the LRT southern extension will actually cost more to operate than the existing buses on weekdays. Weekends will likely be even worse.

I would challenge some of your assumptions regarding the cost to operate the Trillium Line. The Light Rail Operators on the Trillium line are regular bus operators, and pay is the same. The trains are bigger than busses, but the drivetrain is similar (diesel-mechanical) and wheels on rails have a much lower rolling resistance than rubber on asphalt. The trains don't have to make unnecessary stops like a bus would have to as well. With that said, the current train fleet doesn't benefit from the scale of the bus fleet, maintaining six relatively unique vehicles compared to 50+ buses of any one style will cost more.

The key driver though is the cost per passenger. If labour is the most important factor, as it often is, the train is very effective. Each train holds multiple buses worth of people, and scales by adding additional cars without requiring additional operators. If the train is cheaper than a bus at peak periods, then the marginal cost of running mostly empty trains on evenings and weekends will be worthwhile as well.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

They only started thinking that probably a decade too late.

Actually the knew it before the transitway was even finished. It was all politics that caused the original clog downtown:


http://spacing.ca/ottawa/2010/01/26/the-history-of-the-ottawa-subway/

"The other undoing of the Transitway tunnel was a statistical tidbit which claimed that the tunnel would save commuters an average of about four minutes in their crossing of downtown. This was grossly taken out of context by media columnists eager to exploit the burning controversy over the project. The time savings may have been an “average” of four minutes, but during peak times buses were already experiencing severe delays going through the core. Regardless, for the media, hundreds of millions of dollars for four minutes became a mantra."

For all the complaints about O'Brien's legacy, the downtown tunnel was the right thing to do and ended decades of paralysis at City Hall over what to do

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I would challenge some of your assumptions regarding the cost to operate the Trillium Line. The Light Rail Operators on the Trillium line are regular bus operators, and pay is the same.

Interesting. I would have thought the extra training to become a certified engineer would result in a higher pay. Must be a union thing.

The trains are bigger than busses, but the drivetrain is similar (diesel-mechanical) and wheels on rails have a much lower rolling resistance than rubber on asphalt.

Good point about steel wheels but the trains will have more mass. I couldn't find any mass specifics for the LINT 41, but I did read that each train is 137 ft long, so a double train would be 274 ft long, which is 4.5 times as long as a New Flyer D60LFR, so presumably it has at least 4 times the mass, which requires four times the energy to accelerate.

The trains don't have to make unnecessary stops like a bus would have to as well.

I am comparing the Trillium Line extension to the southern transitway extension. If the transitway was at grade, there would only be two crossings for which the bus might have to stop, but a single track LRT may have to stop at sidings if they don't line up with a station. Overall I don't think it is a significant factor. Since the LRT won't be within walking distance of anyone south of Hunt Club, there will still need to be local bus service, where the frequent, unnecessary stops are, so no savings there.

With that said, the current train fleet doesn't benefit from the scale of the bus fleet, maintaining six relatively unique vehicles compared to 50+ buses of any one style will cost more.

True, though there will be more than 6 trains post stage 2, but still, the maintenance costs for an DMU will likely be higher than a bus.

The key driver though is the cost per passenger. If labour is the most important factor, as it often is, the train is very effective. Each train holds multiple buses worth of people, and scales by adding additional cars without requiring additional operators. If the train is cheaper than a bus at peak periods, then the marginal cost of running mostly empty trains on evenings and weekends will be worthwhile as well.

Capacity only matters if there is demand for the capacity. Given that there will be almost as many trains as there currently are buses south of Hunt Club, each train will likely only have as many passengers as a bus could carry. I don't see how operating one train instead of one bus will save anything.

Now if they decide to reduce the LRT service south of Hunt Club off-peak to ever half hour, since the connecting local buses would likely also only operating every half hour off peak (aligning the schedule of all the local routes to the train schedule), then they could save some money, but still not as much as on a route that will nearly fill the train during peak periods (like Barrhaven and Kanata).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting. I would have thought the extra training to become a certified engineer would result in a higher pay. Must be a union thing.

I think I read somewhere that they are just trained operators and not actual railway engineers. (One of the many exceptions granted to the Trillium Line).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting. I would have thought the extra training to become a certified engineer would result in a higher pay. Must be a union thing.



Good point about steel wheels but the trains will have more mass. I couldn't find any mass specifics for the LINT 41, but I did read that each train is 137 ft long, so a double train would be 274 ft long, which is 4.5 times as long as a New Flyer D60LFR, so presumably it has at least 4 times the mass, which requires four times the energy to accelerate.




I am comparing the Trillium Line extension to the southern transitway extension. If the transitway was at grade, there would only be two crossings for which the bus might have to stop, but a single track LRT may have to stop at sidings if they don't line up with a station. Overall I don't think it is a significant factor. Since the LRT won't be within walking distance of anyone south of Hunt Club, there will still need to be local bus service, where the frequent, unnecessary stops are, so no savings there.



True, though there will be more than 6 trains post stage 2, but still, the maintenance costs for an DMU will likely be higher than a bus.



Capacity only matters if there is demand for the capacity. Given that there will be almost as many trains as there currently are buses south of Hunt Club, each train will likely only have as many passengers as a bus could carry. I don't see how operating one train instead of one bus will save anything.

Now if they decide to reduce the LRT service south of Hunt Club off-peak to ever half hour, since the connecting local buses would likely also only operating every half hour off peak (aligning the schedule of all the local routes to the train schedule), then they could save some money, but still not as much as on a route that will nearly fill the train during peak periods (like Barrhaven and Kanata).

The value of a rail line that serves no one within walking distance south of Hunt Club shows a design flaw. It emphasizes continued car dependence since train frequency will only benefit car drivers if connecting bus frequency is less and this appears likely. Compound that with remote station locations that will make bus transfers an unpleasant experience.