Rural Commuter Rail

[lrt's friend]

You've been arguing that this should be addressed before any other priority including the bus congestion in the core.

You don't deal with the paper cut before you treat the gaping stab wound.

I have not said that at any time other than questioning the need for the Trim extension and the Airport spur as a higher priority. I also recognize that special funding has pushed these latter two projects to the next priority.


My thoughts for solutions were always longer term. I expressed my concerns because there are real present day issues with the set up. If people do not speak up, nobody will address weaknesses in any sort of timely fashion. We all know that there is close to a 10 year lead time to plan and build significant rail improvements.


My viewpoint has been expressed over and over again because the experts have said that the current plan for the Trillium Line will suffice until 2048. That is strictly an engineering response. It does not address the reality that the Trillium Line service will not be frequent enough to offer true trunk line service that will be attractive to enough residents in the part of the city that it is designed to serve. Despite your comments, I highly doubt that double tracking will take place until there is no other choice, which will in the end limit ridership growth potential.

You have spoken about transfers and the need for frequency to make them reliable and attractive. I agree. The issue is a 5 minute train to a 12 minute train to a 30 minute local bus does not provide reliable service. Maybe our mental arithmetic will work some of the time, but other times the rider will be literally left sitting on the side of the tracks.


You have also scoffed at my comments about future problems with the Bayview transfer. But if the Trillium Line expansion is successful and a full FLIRT train arrives at Bayview, how will they all get on the next Confederation Line train? Then if we add in Gatineau trains as well at the same location? My point is not about tomorrow, but maybe in 10 or 20 years. But we are heading towards a day when Bayview will be problematic.

[zzptichka]

Last candidate for Mayor to run on this idea to kill Trillium line in favor of Rural Rail? Mike Maguire.
Up until today I thought Doucet was the polar opposite of Maguire, especially when it comes to transit. Go figure.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Except Bayview cannot be a rail hub. There is not enough space for a rail yard for all the terminating trains. Trains would have to operate with through routing. A storage and maintenance facility would have to be located well away from the centre of the city.

And that's probably okay? Walkley Yard isn't that far away.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Except Bayview cannot be a rail hub. There is not enough space for a rail yard for all the terminating trains. Trains would have to operate with through routing. A storage and maintenance facility would have to be located well away from the centre of the city.

Bayview has pretty much limited space.

[CityTech]

Wasn't Doucet the guy who proposed building a streetcar network last time he ran for mayor?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have not said that at any time other than questioning the need for the Trim extension and the Airport spur as a higher priority. I also recognize that special funding has pushed these latter two projects to the next priority.

It's not so much "next priority" as an add-on to the next priority. If you're building LRT to Place D'Orleans, adding a short extension to Trim is not that much more work. And also helps optimize support provisions like parking lots. Likewise, if you're going to Leitrim, it's not a stretch to go through Riverside South and add that short extension.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My thoughts for solutions were always longer term. I expressed my concerns because there are real present day issues with the set up. If people do not speak up, nobody will address weaknesses in any sort of timely fashion. We all know that there is close to a 10 year lead time to plan and build significant rail improvements.

You don't need a 10 year lead to double track and electrify a line though. The long lead times for most rail lines usually happens because getting a corridor involves significant time and money. Building on an existing corridor is substantially easier.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My viewpoint has been expressed over and over again because the experts have said that the current plan for the Trillium Line will suffice until 2048. That is strictly an engineering response. It does not address the reality that the Trillium Line service will not be frequent enough to offer true trunk line service that will be attractive to enough residents in the part of the city that it is designed to serve. Despite your comments, I highly doubt that double tracking will take place until there is no other choice, which will in the end limit ridership growth potential.

I agree. Which is why I've said that I hope they address this in Stage 3. What people like you should be asking is why heck they are thinking about going past Terry Fox in Stage 3 before building to Barrhaven and twin tracking the Trillium Line (electrification can probably be saved for Stage 4).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You have spoken about transfers and the need for frequency to make them reliable and attractive. I agree. The issue is a 5 minute train to a 12 minute train to a 30 minute local bus does not provide reliable service. Maybe our mental arithmetic will work some of the time, but other times the rider will be literally left sitting on the side of the tracks.

Where is it that you have a bus route with 30 min headways at a Trillium line station? And why would that still be the case after we've freed up hundreds of buses from the downtown core?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You have also scoffed at my comments about future problems with the Bayview transfer. But if the Trillium Line expansion is successful and a full FLIRT train arrives at Bayview, how will they all get on the next Confederation Line train? Then if we add in Gatineau trains as well at the same location? My point is not about tomorrow, but maybe in 10 or 20 years. But we are heading towards a day when Bayview will be problematic.

The exact same way people transfer to buses at Bayview today. You just have to make sure there's enough capacity left at Bayview to accommodate riders getting on Bayview. A relief line only enters the discussion when that capacity can't be built in. If we start running 5 car trains with 2 min headways, after implementing ATC and lengthening Confederation Line platforms as necessary, capacity would be greater than 40 000 pphpd. I struggle to see any scenario in my lifetime where the combination of riders from the West, the South and Gatineau overwhelms that much capacity at Bayview. If we were even close to that, the discussion would be moving well past LRT, and we'd probably be talking about a second subway on Carling, converting the Southeast Transitway to LRT and maybe even a Bank St. subway at that point.

[Jayday23]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So obviously he would cancel Trillium stage 2 in favour of this. A few existing stations would be lost (with Carling being an important one). Any word on his stance for Stage 2 Confederation?

If we're keeping diesel for Trillium, might as well do this. With a few more stations within the existing Trillium corridor (existing stations + Gladstone and Walkley) and the airport spur, maintain 8 to 12 minute frequency on the central trunk, a system between GO Transit and TO's RER might not be such a bad idea, as long as Confederation's expansion is not compromised.


https://twitter.com/CliveDoucet/status/1037725963986116609

[lrt's friend]

Where is it that you have a bus route with 30 min headways at a Trillium line station? And why would that still be the case after we've freed up hundreds of buses from the downtown core?

Most bus routes have a 30 minute schedule (or worse) in off-peak hours. On your second question, aren't we laying off hundreds of bus drivers? And the rest will be used for Phase 2 detour service. So nothing or very little for local service improvements. The city has been really struggling maintaining service during these massive construction projects that last years. Can you imagine if our most important streets being closed for this long?

The exact same way people transfer to buses at Bayview today. You just have to make sure there's enough capacity left at Bayview to accommodate riders getting on Bayview. A relief line only enters the discussion when that capacity can't be built in. If we start running 5 car trains with 2 min headways, after implementing ATC and lengthening Confederation Line platforms as necessary, capacity would be greater than 40 000 pphpd. I struggle to see any scenario in my lifetime where the combination of riders from the West, the South and Gatineau overwhelms that much capacity at Bayview. If we were even close to that, the discussion would be moving well past LRT, and we'd probably be talking about a second subway on Carling, converting the Southeast Transitway to LRT and maybe even a Bank St. subway at that point.

You are talking about generalities. I am talking about specifics. We are going to be using trains on the Trillium Line that have similar capacities as the Confederation Line. If 500 passengers get off a Trillium Line train at Bayview, will the next Confederation Line train be able to handle those 500 people? I don't think so. Even if 100 go the opposite direction, this will still likely not work under peak period load. We will be expecting people to wait multiple trains. We better hope the Trillium Line is not too successful.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Wasn't Doucet the guy who proposed building a streetcar network last time he ran for mayor?

Doucet (and Leadman's) 2010 municipal campaign transit plan.

At that time, they conceded that the people wanted the tunnel. They also didn't want to cancel yet another plan and start from scratch. The sticking point was the western route, where both were adamant Carling was the way to go. Trains would have run on street level along Carling.

Carling was eventually deemed not feasible years later due to the 90 degree turns, especially out of the Carling trench turning west. It also would have cut off the O-Train south of Carling and left Tunney's as a lonely spur, impacting the main trunks frequency and capacity.


http://www.transitottawa.ca/2008/11/light-rail-now-transit-alternative.html?m=1

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Most bus routes have a 30 minute schedule (or worse) in off-peak hours.

30 min headways are only there late into the evening just before closure. Where do you have 30 min headways during off-peak in the middle of the day?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

On your second question, aren't we laying off hundreds of bus drivers? And the rest will be used for Phase 2 detour service. So nothing or very little for local service improvements.

And this is something that has to be resolved. But I fail to see how you solve the problem of the poor feeder service with investments in higher order transit.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You are talking about generalities. I am talking about specifics. We are going to be using trains on the Trillium Line that have similar capacities as the Confederation Line. If 500 passengers get off a Trillium Line train at Bayview, will the next Confederation Line be able to handle those 500 people? I don't think so. Even if 100 go the opposite direction, this will still likely not work under peak period load. We will be expecting people to wait multiple trains. We better hope the Trillium Line is not too successful.

How exactly do you think that transfers work in most of the world? Do you think they reserve empty trains for when the other train shows up? But if that really is your concern, than just short-turn trains at Bayview and match the Trillium Line's frequency so that there's an empty train waiting on the platform when a FLIRT shows up.

This is just not a concern to me at all. Each train carries 600 passengers. Those transferring passengers will be cleared in 1-2 eastbound trains. They just have to make sure the trains don't get filled up before Bayview. So design the schedule so that the Confederation Line can absorb 300 standees per train at Bayview and it'll be just fine.

You also seem to think everyone is heading downtown. Some of those riders are going West to Tunney's. And some of the Confederation Line riders will be getting off to board the Trillium Line, freeing up room for eastbound riders.

[SF Thomas]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Last candidate for Mayor to run on this idea to kill Trillium line in favor of Rural Rail? Mike Maguire.
Up until today I thought Doucet was the polar opposite of Maguire, especially when it comes to transit. Go figure.

From Doucet's website:

Many growing cities approaching 1.5 million people introduce a regional rail service. Toronto introduced regional rail in 1967, with the Go Train system. The Ottawa-Gatineau Metropolitan Area has surpassed the 1.3 million mark, and it's time to get the city moving.

We will introduce regional rail, alongside Phase 2 of the light rail system, that connects Kanata, Barrhaven, Kanata North, Stittsville, Bells Corners, Richmond, Navan, Vars, Merivale, Kinburn, Fitzroy, Limoges, Smiths Falls and Gatineau.

To be fair, Doucet says he is proposing this idea in addition to LRT Phase 2, not that he is planning to do it instead of LRT Phase 2. Some elements of this plan, like a line from Greenboro to Kanata using mostly existing track could actually could work reasonably well in addition to LRT.

Maguire was planning to kill LRT Phase 2 entirely, and run an extremely limited peak period commuter service which lacked the transit connectivity to be worthwhile without the LRT line. I remember Maguire for some reason also mistook where Place d'Orleans was. He also insisted his plan to put in new heavy grade rail to Orleans was better, despite LRT Phase 1 already going to Blair which would have made the planned LRT extension more logical.

I think commuter rail out to Smiths Falls without any provincial or federal funding would be pretty pie in the sky though. However Doucet could make some parts of this plan conditional based on if funding becomes available or not. Fitzroy Harbour and Limoges probably don't have the population to support commuter rail at this time either unless you promoted it heavily to rural commuters with large park and rides.

[Truenorth00]

The comparison to Toronto starting GO is such nonsense. It was not Toronto councillors and the mayor of Toronto pushing for a regional rail system. It was Queen's Park. And mostly driven by concerns that CN's passenger rail services were inadequate.

The outlying communities in the GTA were larger. Hamilton in the 1960s had 200 000 residents. The suburban communities also had or developed transit services that fed into GO. And the province subsidized the whole thing very little. GO has a substantial recovery ratio. None of this would apply with what is being discussed here.

If Ottawa asks Queen's Park for a suburban rail service, first they'll be laughed at. And then the counter offer will be a take-it-or-leave it offer of used GO buses. There's no way a province pressed for cash agrees to spend hundreds of millions to launch a suburban rail service for a few thousand riders when that money could fund a single at-grade LRT anywhere in the GTA with substantially higher ridership.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by SF Thomas

To be fair, Doucet says he is proposing this idea in addition to LRT Phase 2, not that he is planning to do it instead of LRT Phase 2. Some elements of this plan, like a line from Greenboro to Kanata using mostly existing track could actually could work reasonably well in addition to LRT.

There's some conflicting info:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...o-transit-clive-doucet-has-a-plan-for-it

Says here he'd push pause on Stage 2.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's some conflicting info:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...o-transit-clive-doucet-has-a-plan-for-it

Says here he'd push pause on Stage 2.

He wants to see how Stage 1 works for a little bit first before signing contracts for Stage 2.

Assuming Stage 1 works well (which it looks like it will), then we'll get Stage 2 "and" the regional rail plan? Hopefully Doucet has more answers.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

He wants to see how Stage 1 works for a little bit first before signing contracts for Stage 2.

He's peddling all the irrational fears of the Confederation Line, like being "worried that the tunnel under downtown and the Rideau Canal will leak". Its irresponsible. The "wait and see" approach would end up costing us money as the contractors and train manufacturers have to ramp-down and ramp-up operations.

Up until this point I was considering voting for Doucet for some new ideas, but he loses my vote with his promise to cancel the Baseline BRT because "people there don’t want it".

He hasn't thought any of this through or consulted with any experts, its a mess.

[Truenorth00]

How exactly does "wait and see" work with signed contracts in place? There's already a contract for LRVs in place. And he'd cancel the contract award just after all the companies spent millions building their bids?

Sounds to me like he wants to re-litigate the last LRT debate. Not actually build transit. This is some Rob Ford-esque nonsense.

[AuxTown]

Watson tore a strip off of Doucet and his plan on the radio last night. I don't always agree with Watson but I most definitely do in this case. Who the hell wants commuter rail in Fitzroy? Maybe 20 people will use it everyday and it will result in a $400 transit levy for every single person in the area serviced by the train. Plus basing your platform on something this big but not providing any hard costing numbers is irresponsible. I would say that people are smart enough to realize this is a political ploy but look what happened south of the border last year. We live in an era of fake news, false promises, and alternative facts!

[J.OT13]

Playing the devil's advocate, nearly all transit plans are born as a pie-in-the-sky promise from a politician. Remember O'Brien's "In all world-class cities I've been in, a trip on mass transit starts with a trip down an escalator". The guy just had an idea. No plan, no costing. He got elected and it was built.

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20061027/282578783538696

Doucet also makes a good point when he says “When you’re building roads — you look at the roads here. They’re widening the 417, they’re widening this road, they’re widening that road, they’re building the Alta Vista Expressway. No one gets their knickers in a twist about how are you going to do that. They just keep rolling out asphalt like sand. Well, it should be like that in transit. We should have the liberty to roll out our system in an incremental way,”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...o-transit-clive-doucet-has-a-plan-for-it

That said, his plans has a lot of holes. Rails to Navan and Chelsea have been ripped out. The Pont Noir in Gatineau has a single lane for buses and freight trains. Removing a few stations, especially Carling and future Gladstone, on the existing Trillium will screw with the development patterns.

His paranoia about the tunnel is also out of whack. There are hundreds of underground subways around the world that have no such issues as leakage or flooding. As for his concerns over transfers and efficiencies, they will be mostly resolved with Stage 2. As multi-modal said, delaying Stage 2 will cost us hundreds of millions more.

[jchilds72]

I was wondering about some of the routing of Doucet's proposed regional rail, if anybody has opinions.

1) Greenboro - Is the station moving or will it be in the same place and be on a little spur that all three routes would have to enter/exit in both directions?

2) The rail bridge across the Rideau river east of Colonnade Rd. - Is that a single track bridge? Which would have all three routes travelling in both directions across it plus all Via trains to/from Toronto?

3) Routing - Stittsville to Kinburn? Navan to Vars? Is there existing tracks connecting those locations?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

30 min headways are only there late into the evening just before closure. Where do you have 30 min headways during off-peak in the middle of the day?



And this is something that has to be resolved. But I fail to see how you solve the problem of the poor feeder service with investments in higher order transit.




How exactly do you think that transfers work in most of the world? Do you think they reserve empty trains for when the other train shows up? But if that really is your concern, than just short-turn trains at Bayview and match the Trillium Line's frequency so that there's an empty train waiting on the platform when a FLIRT shows up.

This is just not a concern to me at all. Each train carries 600 passengers. Those transferring passengers will be cleared in 1-2 eastbound trains. They just have to make sure the trains don't get filled up before Bayview. So design the schedule so that the Confederation Line can absorb 300 standees per train at Bayview and it'll be just fine.

You also seem to think everyone is heading downtown. Some of those riders are going West to Tunney's. And some of the Confederation Line riders will be getting off to board the Trillium Line, freeing up room for eastbound riders.

You do know I am talking about bus schedules when I talk about 30 minute frequency. Most bus routes in this city run on 30 minute schedules in off-peak hours. Even the frequent network, does not guarantee 15 minute frequency in the evening or on weekends. The lack of frequency means that extra imposed transfers from rail to bus may not work efficiently. That is all I am talking about. It is a reality and it appears that the city cannot afford to invest in it. This is the 'last mile' problem that is well known in the transit industry and a barrier against increasing ridership on rail systems, especially in cities with poor bus networks. We do not have the level of supporting bus service that exists in Toronto or Montreal.


Regarding the Bayview transfer, every city has different issues. I did point out that some people will be going in the opposite direction. It is reasonable to expect that once the Trillium Line is extended to serve normal commuters (as opposed to mostly students at the present time), those heading towards downtown will increase in numbers and proportionally. If the Trillium Line is to be the trunk line for the south end of the city, people heading downtown will expect efficient transfers at Bayview. You say it is not a concern to you, if people have to wait for more than one train to pass. Why is that? Because you are not directly affected? This is exactly replicating the problems at Bloor and Yonge. Perhaps on a smaller scale as far as numbers of people inconvenienced, but still people may be waiting multiple trains to reach their destination. This also extends out travel times and affects reliability of the overall service, the supposed selling point of rail service. So you add another 4 minutes, on top of the delays caused by slow operating trains on the Trillium Line that has already added 5 minutes north of Greenboro. That is close 10 minutes extra time being added on trip times that now take 20 minutes to go from Greenboro to downtown today. If we are building very expensive rail lines, they need to provide the same speed of service at a very minimum.

It is for this very reason, that the majority of south end residents who are not Carleton students do not use the Trillium Line. The rail service that we have designed is too inefficient.