Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Trim and Airport have a combined cost of around $350M. IMO, it would have been smart to pull out that money and redirect it to further double tracking of the Trillium trunk.

From an article I read, double tracking the main part of the line would have cost significantly more than that. (double tracking + electrification would be around $1 billion more).

What it could have paid for is electrification (without double tracking) of the line (~$300 million), but that would have rendered the LINTs useless and the airport authority wouldn't be happy.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

From an article I read, double tracking the main part of the line would have cost significantly more than that. (double tracking + electrification would be around $1 billion more).

What it could have paid for is electrification (without double tracking) of the line (~$300 million), but that would have rendered the LINTs useless and the airport authority wouldn't be happy.

Why is that price tag $1B when we had the opportunity to build a much longer line for $900M? Now that is definitely opportunity lost.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is that price tag $1B when we had the opportunity to build a much longer line for $900M? Now that is definitely opportunity lost.

That is a good question.

The numbers I found were from this article. It actually said "up to" $1 billion, if that matters.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That is a good question.

The numbers I found were from this article. It actually said "up to" $1 billion, if that matters.

Good Day.

caution - that was ..... up to $1 Billion -extra- .
ie: a totalish $1.5 Billion, give-or-take this-or-that,
in the loosy-goosy numbers being tossed around at the time.

EnJoy!

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That is a good question.

The numbers I found were from this article. It actually said "up to" $1 billion, if that matters.

Those numbers really make no sense, considering the 2006 "Chiarelli" plan was going to cost $900M including:

-Double-tracking and electrification of the entire existing line
-2 new stations at Gladstone and Walkley
-extension through downtown to uOttawa
-Extension to Barrhaven Centre including Strandherd-Earl Armstrong bridge

Now we are saying that just the first point would cost $1B???

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

caution - that was ..... up to $1 Billion -extra- .
ie: a totalish $1.5 Billion, give-or-take this-or-that,
in the loosy-goosy numbers being tossed around at the time.

EnJoy!

You're right, I should have been more clear on that.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Those numbers really make no sense, considering the 2006 "Chiarelli" plan was going to cost $900M including:

-Double-tracking and electrification of the entire existing line
-2 new stations at Gladstone and Walkley
-extension through downtown to uOttawa
-Extension to Barrhaven Centre including Strandherd-Earl Armstrong bridge

Now we are saying that just the first point would cost $1B???

Since there was never anything close to a detailed study (that was published anyway), all we know is that it would cost somewhere between $300 million and $1 billion (edit) extra.

[Truenorth00]

Construction projects look a lot cheaper when you ignore 15 years of inflation (with construction running higher than general), ignore different capacity requirements, and ignore the development of areas where you want to construct. It'd be pretty cheap to construct LRT through green field in Carp. And when the old LRT plan was put forward, a good chunk of it was to support suburbs that hadn't been constructed yet.

I also suspect that $800 million figure wasn't as firm as we might think.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I was by no means suggesting Ottawa HAS to build another line in 20 years, but that we should certainly be planning around that eventually happening. To the contrary, the most efficient use of money is to absolute pack the confederation line corridor with density while continually upgrading infrastructure etc. to maintain reliability and update the ridership experience.

I think in reality the worst option is what the Albertan cities have had to do, in building their LRT's to support sprawling neighborhoods they have spread themselves to thin and as a result have somewhat lackluster systems with poor service. This contrasts Toronto and something like the Yonge Line (which is obviously a different context but I am making a comparison) which has the ridership to require 10-minute frequencies even late into the nights (Edmonton's highest frequencies are often about every 10 minutes).

The other thing I alluded to before is that while Line 1 has a solid foundation there's still lots to improve down the road. Rolling stock could be better optimized and customized to Ottawas needs (and ATC) stations can have platform gates or even PSDs added and led displays can be replaced with full color LCD's. Point being that since the fundamentals will already be there from day one with our system we will likely have the ability to add more of those nice-to-have amenities than a city like Calgary which will be worrying about burying there lines.

Considering that I will be a 30 to 45 minute bus ride from the Confederation Line and many others live significantly farther than me, I would much rather have one of the Alberta rail systems that will bring service a little closer to my home.


I don't care whether trains run every minute on the Confederation Line. Once you reach 5 minute frequency, there is little further to gain in convenience. I would be perfectly happy to receive 15 minute frequency late in the evening, which is the level of service on the C-Train after 10 pm.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Construction projects look a lot cheaper when you ignore 15 years of inflation (with construction running higher than general), ignore different capacity requirements, and ignore the development of areas where you want to construct. It'd be pretty cheap to construct LRT through green field in Carp. And when the old LRT plan was put forward, a good chunk of it was to support suburbs that hadn't been constructed yet.

I also suspect that $800 million figure wasn't as firm as we might think.

There were a lot of guarantees built into that plan so that the bulk of the risk was put on the consortium.

There is a lot of good that can come out of building early, otherwise we end up spending $100Ms extra because neighbours demand that the line be buried.

That is a perfect example of opportunity costs, where money could have been spent elsewhere if we didn't wait until burying the line was an absolute necessity.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There were a lot of guarantees built into that plan so that the bulk of the risk was put on the consortium.

There is a lot of good that can come out of building early, otherwise we end up spending $100Ms extra because neighbours demand that the line be buried.

Ideally, transit should be built with development. And the old LRT plan would certainly have been an example of that. But doing this requires a core system that already addresses the bulk of your transit needs. Buillding a half empty LRT to a mostly empty, lower density suburb, while completely ignoring the already failing transit network in the core was a moronic decision.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That is a perfect example of opportunity costs, where money could have been spent elsewhere if we didn't wait until burying the line was an absolute necessity.

The opportunity cost of building the old LRT could well have been no tunneled LRT, along with continued reliance on pumping 200 buses per hour through the core at peak, for probably 20 years. It's very likely that a tunneled LRT either might not have been built, or would have been delayed into the 2020s.

They absolutely made the right choice in building the Confederation Line. And the fact that it will be the busiest LRT line in North America on day one, vindicates that decision. Ridership on the old LRT proposal. Was it even half of the Confederation Line?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Considering that I will be a 30 to 45 minute bus ride from the Confederation Line and many others live significantly farther than me, I would much rather have one of the Alberta rail systems that will bring service a little closer to my home.

Are we designing transit based on what's good for lrt's friend or what's good for Ottawa?

Also, the only people on a 30 minute bus ride from the Confederation Line or Trillium Line after Stage 2 are people who live in Stittsville or the edge of Kanata or rural residents.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't care whether trains run every minute on the Confederation Line. Once you reach 5 minute frequency, there is little further to gain in convenience. I would be perfectly happy to receive 15 minute frequency late in the evening, which is the level of service on the C-Train after 10 pm.

Frequency absolutely matters if you want to build a system that is to be a real alternative to the car. 15 min headways is ridiculous for a rapid transit corridor. Even for late service. Anything more than 10 mins is ridiculous. Just one connection with two routes on 10 min headways means upto 20 mins of potential delays if you happened to just miss the train that left and then just miss your connection.

In any event, the largest driver of frequency is demand. The Confederation Line has 3-5 minute headways at peak, because it needs to move 11 000 riders per hour in the peak direction. With paired cars, that means 18 trains per hour, or just over 3 min headways.

[lrt's friend]

Are we designing transit based on what's good for lrt's friend or what's good for Ottawa?

Also, the only people on a 30 minute bus ride from the Confederation Line or Trillium Line after Stage 2 are people who live in Stittsville or the edge of Kanata or rural residents.

My interests are for the whole city, however, my situation is telling. People who deny other people's realities will not design a good plan. I do not expect door to door one seat service, however, for years that has been the claim, simply to discredit my opinion.


People say they want to improve service for whole city and then focus almost exclusively on only one corridor. One corridor is not going to serve Ottawa well.


Yes, I live within minutes of the Trillium Line but I have used it only twice since 2001 to go downtown. Why? Because the frequency is not adequate to make a reliable connection home. Also because, it is significantly faster to go from Greenboro to downtown via Hurdman than via Bayview. Trillium Line trains operate way too slowly. Just take one and see the trains crawl. So I say that my ride by bus will be 30 to 45 minutes to the Confederation Line because the alternative, the Trillium Line will be worse. Is that not legitimate?


You argue that 15 minute service is not good enough even late at night. Fair enough. But that was not my point. My point is that I would like a reasonably frequent service that comes somewhere in my general section of the city. I don't expect any preference over those living in Orleans or any other major part of the city. By the same token, the population in this area is comparable to Orleans and because I live inside the Greenbelt, we should receive some benefit from the growing population beyond and outside the Greenbelt.


As it stands, neither service via Bayview nor Hurdman are ideal. Both are indirect, and as of November, both require transfers. I dream about a Bank Street subway because that would be the best long-term solution. It is consistent with the city's desire to intensify the entire Bank Street corridor but our transit plan of mostly buses will not allow that to succeed. I said it is dream knowing it will not likely become a reality in my lifetime. I understand that. Nevertheless, can one not express a dream? I think that dream is fairly popular on this discussion board from others who have expressed the same dream.


You talk about frequency issues and wait times but your example is only the tip of the iceberg. The is no plan to double track the Trillium Line so frequency will continue to be a problem. But the bigger problem is bus frequeny. Come November, at least 90% of transit riders will still need to take a bus. This may decline somewhat by the time we reach Phase 3 but the Confederation Line does not exactly run through the heart of neighbourhoods anywhere. Bus frequency will continue to be a problem. This is not a problem just for lrt's friend, it will be a problem for most Ottawans.

[J.OT13]

Hurdman Station








https://twitter.com/JimWatsonOttawa/status/1033071038609776641

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My interests are for the whole city, however, my situation is telling. People who deny other people's realities will not design a good plan. I do not expect door to door one seat service, however, for years that has been the claim, simply to discredit my opinion.

Eh? You complain about a transfer at Bayview or Hurdman in your post. So why should people think you aren't anything but desirous of a one-seat ride to the core?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

People say they want to improve service for whole city and then focus almost exclusively on only one corridor. One corridor is not going to serve Ottawa well.

Indeed, one corridor is not sufficient. That's why Ottawa has more than one corridor. You keep going on as though the Trillium Line and all the Transitways don't exist.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, I live within minutes of the Trillium Line but I have used it only twice since 2001 to go downtown. Why? Because the frequency is not adequate to make a reliable connection home.

Exactly my point. Which is why you don't build transit lines in locations where they cannot support frequent service. The Trillium Line will barely have 8 min frequencies because the business case to double track is horrendous. If you're in the northwest of the city, you'll travel north of the Confederation Line. If you're in the Southeast, your bus can get on the Southeast Transitway and you can transfer at Hurdman. Southwest or West? Bus gets on Transitway to the Confederation Line. So there's only a small area in the South that actually needs the Trillium Line. And the ridership numbers reflect that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also because, it is significantly faster to go from Greenboro to downtown via Hurdman than via Bayview. Trillium Line trains operate way too slowly. Just take one and see the trains crawl. So I say that my ride by bus will be 30 to 45 minutes to the Confederation Line because the alternative, the Trillium Line will be worse. Is that not legitimate?

Post Stage 2, with 8 min frequencies, you should be going to the Trillium Line. And if you still choose to go to Hurdman to get a one-seat ride to the core, that's you resorting to a longer ride to avoid a transfer. That doesn't make you at all reflective of the general user case in Ottawa.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

By the same token, the population in this area is comparable to Orleans and because I live inside the Greenbelt, we should receive some benefit from the growing population beyond and outside the Greenbelt.

The population may be comparable, but the ridership isn't. And given that the core was choking on buses, moving as many riders to rail as possible was an urgent priority. Regional rail equity was not priority. Ridership was.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As it stands, neither service via Bayview nor Hurdman are ideal. Both are indirect, and as of November, both require transfers.

Geography and travel patterns means the south can never have a one-seat ride to the core. Not unless, we massively compromise the East-West corridors that carry most of the riders into the core.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I dream about a Bank Street subway because that would be the best long-term solution. It is consistent with the city's desire to intensify the entire Bank Street corridor but our transit plan of mostly buses will not allow that to succeed.

It's not the transit plan that won't allow it. It's the lack of riders. If the Trillium Line didn't exist, the Bank St. subway would have a case. But the Trillium Line does exist, and so does the Southeast Transitway, and you will have three lines heading south that are less than 5 km apart splitting the catchment area. Carling is less than 2 km from the Bank St. Mooney's Bay is less than 1.5 km. Straight line distance from the southeast Transitway at Hurdman is only a tad over 2km from Bank. And gets closer as you head south. This is why the case for a Bank St. subway is poor.

And it's a hell of a lot cheaper and faster to twin track and electrify the Trillium Line than it is to build a subway under Bank. For the cost of getting from Queen to the Glebe, the entire Trillium post-Stage 2 could be twinned and electrified.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The is no plan to double track the Trillium Line so frequency will continue to be a problem.

Agreed. But I would bet we will see that for Stage 3.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But the bigger problem is bus frequency. Come November, at least 90% of transit riders will still need to take a bus. This may decline somewhat by the time we reach Phase 3 but the Confederation Line does not exactly run through the heart of neighbourhoods anywhere. Bus frequency will continue to be a problem. This is not a problem just for lrt's friend, it will be a problem for most Ottawans.

Exactly why freeing up buses by moving the busiest bus routes to rail was so important. They absolutely do have to improve feeder services. But you can't have frequent local bus service, when half of your buses are deadheading 20 km at the end of every run. Hopefully, we'll see some serious rethink of local bus services post-Stage 2.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Post Stage 2, with 8 min frequencies, you should be going to the Trillium Line. And if you still choose to go to Hurdman to get a one-seat ride to the core, that's you resorting to a longer ride to avoid a transfer. That doesn't make you at all reflective of the general user case in Ottawa.

Stage 2 won't be increasing frequencies on the Trillium Line at all. They will be remaining at 12 minutes.

Edit: As others in the Stage 2 thread pointed out, they may be underpromising to avoid the same problem that happened with the last upgrade, but at best the frequency will only improve to 10 minutes as that's what the upgrade was designed around (as specified in the design report).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Stage 2 won't be increasing frequencies on the Trillium Line at all. They will be remaining at 12 minutes.

Edit: As others in the Stage 2 thread pointed out, they may be underpromising to avoid the same problem that happened with the last upgrade, but at best the frequency will only improve to 10 minutes as that's what the upgrade was designed around (as specified in the design report).

Improving to 10 minutes would put it inside the definition of what most people would consider acceptable for a rapid transit corridor. Not ideal by any measure.

The issue that the Trillium Line suffers from is that it's too close to the Southeast Transitway. Especially outside the core. And as lrt's friend himself points out, it's way easier for him to take the Transitway and transfer at Hurdman. So these riders are well covered by BRT. So there's very little incentive to invest in capacity expansion when BRT is already covering the area. Hopefully, we'll see at least some investment in Stage 3. At least twin track till the airport.

[swimmer_spe]

With Stage 2 adding a leg east and west, will they be cutting service to the ends or will the common parts have more frequency?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

With Stage 2 adding a leg east and west, will they be cutting service to the ends or will the common parts have more frequency?

More riders. Why would they cut service? Also, assuming a 50:50 split at Lincoln Fields, means frequency in both Nepean and Kanata will be half of the central corridor. So anything more than say 5 mins on the central corridor will mean 10 min headways at Moodie and Baseline. So they'll need at least 3 min frequencies on the central corridor at peak to even be close to reasonable on the branches.

I could see a scenario where they short-turn trains in the east-end during rush. But that'd be a real stretch given the ridership in Orleans.