Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I assume you mean the southern end of Michael Street North and not a bridge across the 417 to Michael Street. It would be nice if the could extend it further west to St-Laurant Station, potentially connecting it to the MUP west of the station.

When the Queensway was built, there was a pedestrian underpass that connected both sides of Michael Street. You can see it on the geoOttawa site and the 1965 and 1976 air photos. It was to connect the residential area (still present) on the south side of the Queensway to the schools, church and shopping on the north side of the Queensway. The schools and church have since closed and shopping has shifted to St. Laurent Shopping Centre. It appears that the underpass was eliminated when they built the Transitway.

I guess even in the 80s, pedestrian infrastructure was not considered a priority.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When the Queensway was built, there was a pedestrian underpass that connected both sides of Michael Street. You can see it on the geoOttawa site and the 1965 and 1976 air photos. It was to connect the residential area (still present) on the south side of the Queensway to the schools, church and shopping on the north side of the Queensway. The schools and church have since closed and shopping has shifted to St. Laurent Shopping Centre. It appears that the underpass was eliminated when they built the Transitway.

I guess even in the 80s, pedestrian infrastructure was not considered a priority.

I remember seeing that pedestrian underpass as I’d go by on the queensway. It was like a giant culvert. It may have also been visible from the Towers plaza on cyrville that is now Canex.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I remember seeing that pedestrian underpass as I’d go by on the queensway. It was like a giant culvert. It may have also been visible from the Towers plaza on cyrville that is now Canex.

When I was in High School, we were bussed through Cyrville every day. I also remember seeing the underpass and I have since read about why it was built.

When the Queensway was being built, it was going to split Cyrville right in half. Local residents demanded a connection and they got it. Those were the days when Cyrville was still a separate town.

[kevinbottawa]

I found this rendering by MMM Group from the old North-South LRT plan. It's LRT on Sparks Street. I actually like this.



http://mmmgrouplimited.com/projects/ottawa-north-south-light-rail-transit-lrt-ottawa/

[acottawa]

That isn't the old North South LRT plan, which was supposed to run on Albert/Slater

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That isn't the old North South LRT plan, which was supposed to run on Albert/Slater

That's what it says on the MMM website.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

IIRC, (I have to dig up my old docs,) Sparks was eliminated very very early in the NS-LRT plan to route into downtown, since Sparks was a dedicated pedestrian mall, and you simply should / could not mix pedestrians with an LRT. ! The horror ! Plus they hit the problem of a viable eastern terminus location. They locked onto and into Albert / Slater virtually immediately, given the existing 'Transitway' lanes. MMM was involved in those early studies, and (rightly so, IMHO) still retain an interest in promoting Sparks as a Transit Mall given the new interest in <redeveloping> Sparks. I happen to think that running a streetcar-level LRT down Sparks would be the biggest positive that they could ever do to Sparks. Tie it into either a Gatineau loop, or run from Bayview through downtown onto Rideau and through Montreal Rd ? Unthinkable bonus !

Plus - read the text carefully - they only state that they were involved in the NS-LRT studies, not that it would be on Sparks. Planner images are a dime a dozen, especially over time.

My two cents ! EnJoy!

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I found this rendering by MMM Group from the old North-South LRT plan. It's LRT on Sparks Street. I actually like this.



http://mmmgrouplimited.com/projects/ottawa-north-south-light-rail-transit-lrt-ottawa/

Reminiscent of the tram in Basel.

[Kitchissippi]

A transit mall? Been there, done that. Practically every example of it in North America have failed, spiralling into uncomfortable and threatening environments frequented by loiterers and vagrants. Shoppers come to a mall for the retail, not for the transit. As long as there is better retail elsewhere, Sparks street will continue to struggle. A Sparks streetcar would be far from efficient or rapid, and extending it eastward means barreling right through the War Memorial. Thankfully this idea will be redundant light as the Confederation Line is being built only one street over.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A transit mall? Been there, done that. Practically every example of it in North America have failed, spiralling into uncomfortable and threatening environments frequented by loiterers and vagrants. Shoppers come to a mall for the retail, not for the transit. As long as there is better retail elsewhere, Sparks street will continue to struggle. A Sparks streetcar would be far from efficient or rapid, and extending it eastward means barreling right through the War Memorial. Thankfully this idea will be redundant light as the Confederation Line is being built only one street over.

Loiters and vagrants are a problem with law enforcement and can happen no matter what transit option is chosen if law enforcement does not enforce laws.

I don't think a transit mall would have worked in this case (the Confederation Line needs far more capacity than a surface LRT could offer and a Rideau Centre connection is necessary or at least very beneficial). However, I don't see a reason why a transit mall couldn't work in other contexts in Ottawa.

The main shopping street in Nice has a newish tram and it works well.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7029619,7...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[Radster]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Reminiscent of the tram in Basel.

....and Amsterdam, and many other European cities with streetcars running on narrow pedestrian only shopping streets....

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Loiters and vagrants are a problem with law enforcement and can happen no matter what transit option is chosen if law enforcement does not enforce laws.

I don't think a transit mall would have worked in this case (the Confederation Line needs far more capacity than a surface LRT could offer and a Rideau Centre connection is necessary or at least very beneficial). However, I don't see a reason why a transit mall couldn't work in other contexts in Ottawa.

The main shopping street in Nice has a newish tram and it works well.

Good Day.
1) Absolutely. Enforcement and patrol is Everything, in this context.
2) I was not proposing Sparks T-M as instead of the Confed Line - absolutely not. That was a main reason I opposed the Chiarelli NS-LRT line through the downtown - it would have been an absolute capacity/frequency/consistency nightmare.
Rather, the Sparks T-M should complement the Confed Line. It would provide local connectivity at the least, with more frequent stops. And it would not be capacity -essential-, being subject to traffic congestion and marcher obstruction. And being one block offset from the Confed Line is precisely correct, in terms of customer flow between the two. Exits from the Confed line like on O'Connor (155 Queen St Heritage Bldg.) would be perfect for interchange. Just my opinion.

EnJoy!

[lrt's friend]

The transit mall on Rideau failed, not because of transit, but because the shelters encouraged vagrants and also because the Rideau Centre that opened at the same time sucked much of the pedestrian traffic off the street and into the mall.

Such a plan for Sparks Street would have never worked on a regional basis. It was clear that a tunnel was needed. However, as part of a more local service for centre town, it may do just fine to bring pedestrians right onto Sparks.

Some have complained that the Confederation Line does not serve Centretown residents well. I am not sure we need a Confederation Line type service for them.

Can we ever build a subway down Bank Street or Rideau Street or are we forever left with buses increasingly being held up in worse and worse traffic congestion? There are other improvements that can be made that does not require the expense of a subway. If we can even accomplish transit segregation in separate lanes (a type of transit mall), this would be an improvement over the status quo. It could be done cheaper with buses than trams, however, if we want to improve esthetics downtown, then quieter and less polluting trams will be a good choice. Not only that, not burying all transit downtown will demonstrate that Ottawa is a transit city and downtown is accessible.

The Confederation Line is not the solution for all our transit needs downtown. It is a mistake to think that one transit line can do everything and be effective. It will be good for commuters especially as it is extended further. But in the long run, especially in off-peak hours, it will not be a great draw for bringing people downtown for those who do not live within walking distance of a station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I found this rendering by MMM Group from the old North-South LRT plan. It's LRT on Sparks Street. I actually like this.

LRT on Sparks would have made sense if it was just a tram/streetcar and not the backbone of the entire regional transit system.

People are calling this LRT. But it's effectively a light metro. It's got a fully segregated, grade-separated, exclusive right-of-way. It's not running on the street anywhere. The only part about it that is "light rail" are the transit vehicles. It's frequencies are actually reasonably high too. And when the initial consultations happen for the Confederation Line, I remember certain potential bidders like Kinki Sharyo actually proposing a light metro instead.

So think of whether you'd allow a light metro along Sparks.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.
1) Absolutely. Enforcement and patrol is Everything, in this context.
2) I was not proposing Sparks T-M as instead of the Confed Line - absolutely not. That was a main reason I opposed the Chiarelli NS-LRT line through the downtown - it would have been an absolute capacity/frequency/consistency nightmare.
Rather, the Sparks T-M should complement the Confed Line. It would provide local connectivity at the least, with more frequent stops. And it would not be capacity -essential-, being subject to traffic congestion and marcher obstruction. And being one block offset from the Confed Line is precisely correct, in terms of customer flow between the two. Exits from the Confed line like on O'Connor (155 Queen St Heritage Bldg.) would be perfect for interchange. Just my opinion.

EnJoy!

Is there enough traffic in the area to even justify a transit mall? The LRT is going to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 a lot of transit traffic off the streets.

And a transit mall would probably destroy the character of Sparks. It's not wide enough in my opinion. Add to that the disruption of a rail junction at every cross street downtown.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A transit mall? Been there, done that. Practically every example of it in North America have failed, spiralling into uncomfortable and threatening environments frequented by loiterers and vagrants. Shoppers come to a mall for the retail, not for the transit. As long as there is better retail elsewhere, Sparks street will continue to struggle. A Sparks streetcar would be far from efficient or rapid, and extending it eastward means barreling right through the War Memorial. Thankfully this idea will be redundant light as the Confederation Line is being built only one street over.

Sparks Street will boom because of the LRT. Just watch. Putting it under Queen is one of the best things that could have happen to Sparks.

[Truenorth00]

Anyone know why they are planning on running two trains tied together? Why not just increase frequencies and convenience for all? Or why not go with longer trains (with more middle segments)?

Is that only a rush hour thing?

Also. Given 120 seats on each train, what are the chances that I get a seat at Cyvrille or St. Laurent during rush hour?

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Anyone know why they are planning on running two trains tied together? Why not just increase frequencies and convenience for all? Or why not go with longer trains (with more middle segments)?

Is that only a rush hour thing?

Also. Given 120 seats on each train, what are the chances that I get a seat at Cyvrille or St. Laurent during rush hour?

My understanding is it will be a weekday thing.

At some time in the future we will see 3 coupled together, but some construction on the above ground stations will be required first. The underground ones will already have long enough platforms.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

My understanding is it will be a weekday thing.

That is my understanding as well. They may drop down to single trains sometime during the evening as well. Probably not worth the effort during the day, between peak periods.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why not just increase frequencies and convenience for all?

A couple reasons.

• One of the easiest ways to increase capacity over time is to increase frequency. If you start at maximum frequency, you remove that flexibility.
• The trains will have a driver, so running twice as many shorter trains will const much more than half as many longer trains.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Or why not go with longer trains (with more middle segments)?

It makes it much harder to shorten them for off peak use when we don't need a capacity of 600 people per train.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also. Given 120 seats on each train, what are the chances that I get a seat at Cyvrille or St. Laurent during rush hour?

So for a double train, that's 240 seats. Tough to say for sure, but I think it is reasonable (especially at Cyvrille). At Hurdman your chances will be slim to none though.

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

At some time in the future we will see 3 coupled together, but some construction on the above ground stations will be required first.

Not three trains but two longer trains (from 48m to 59m each) as shown in the video clip below (jump to 29 seconds):

• Video Link

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

An item to remember too.... I think that, from what I can see, the coupler between the LR vehicles looks to be semi-permanent, or at least not have a quickly couple/uncouple capability. It looks like a separate tie-bar between the noses of the two nose-to-nose vehicles. Thus any change to the one or two vehicle consist in operation is a full substitution into and out of Belfast, and I just do not see that happening with any frequency.
They had this concept of changing consist lengths during daily operations for the Montreal Metro, which has a far more accessible coupler, and gave up the idea before even opening. Other systems do do this, but again, the couplers are far more accessible on a moments' basis.
IMHO.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

An item to remember too.... I think that, from what I can see, the coupler between the LR vehicles looks to be semi-permanent, or at least not have a quickly couple/uncouple capability. It looks like a separate tie-bar between the noses of the two nose-to-nose vehicles. Thus any change to the one or two vehicle consist in operation is a full substitution into and out of Belfast, and I just do not see that happening with any frequency.

Interesting. I read somewhere that Alstom's automation systems support remote coupling and uncoupling of trains, so I was curious if Ottawa's trains would have electronically controlled couplers. If they did, when changing shifts the off duty driver could drive half of the train home to Belfast.

Speaking of changing shifts, any word on how that will be done? Will all shifts start and end at Bellfast or will they bus* replacement drivers to Blair or Tunnies and then bus* the off duty driver back to Belfast?

* the "bus" could actually be a train.