Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your transfer time will always be 5 to 10 mins. Regardless of the frequency of service. When your bus arrives, you don't magically teleport onto the train platform with a train waiting for you to step on.

Worst case scenario here is that you get to the train platform and watch a train depart. That would be transfer time + headway to the next train. Best case scenario is that you get to the platform and step onto a train which departs right after you step on. That would be just the transfer time. Assuming 10 min headways and 5 mins to get from your bus to the platform, that's a total transfer time of 5-15 mins. Doubling frequency and getting 5 min headways changes that bracket to 5-10 mins.

Your post makes a larger argument for investing in improved bus frequency and better routing than it does for increasing Trillium Line frequencies. Alternatively, just take a bus that goes to Hurdman. I don't see why at all this is not seen an acceptable option.

Excuse me. Get rid of the transfer at Greenboro. Automatically, there is a 5 to 10 minute saving. Get it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I think that's lrt's friend's point- there is no bus direct from Blossom Park to Hurdman outside of peak. So even after Stage 2, it's a transfer at South Keys either way- either to Line 2 or to a bus to Hurdman.

lrt's friend has repeatedly argued that the old LRT plan was preferable to the Confederation Line. And then keeps arguing that Bayview is somehow going to become like Yonge/Bloor in Toronto, so we need to build an extension of the Trillium Lin turning into the core to avoid this fate. There's a lot more to his views that just improved bus service.

I've never actually disputed that Ottawa needs to really improve bus service. And it's unfortunate that they are laying off drivers instead of mobilizing them for improve feeder service.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

lrt's friend has repeatedly argued that the old LRT plan was preferable to the Confederation Line. And then keeps arguing that Bayview is somehow going to become like Yonge/Bloor in Toronto, so we need to build an extension of the Trillium Lin turning into the core to avoid this fate. There's a lot more to his views that just improved bus service.

I've never actually disputed that Ottawa needs to really improve bus service. And it's unfortunate that they are laying off drivers instead of mobilizing them for improve feeder service.

Again don't put words in my mouth. I did prefer the original plan for our part of the city only. I certainly understood its severe deficiencies in dealing with downtown problems. As a result (I have said it for years here), that I support the downtown tunnel fully. It is an absolute necessity to eliminate downtown congestion.

I am perfectly happy that LRT should replace single seat expresses. Our city has outgrown that latter concept. However, our plan should deliver single transfer connections to downtown everywhere in the city especially once rail reaches the 4 main suburbs. When you start seeing double transfer being implemented, our plan is deficient. Double transfers mean that commuter rail should be introduced from the outer suburbs but we know that is impossible given that our downtown rail network disappeared 50 years ago. Given that, our LRT plan should be better so that these double transfers (and the double transfer penalties) are not being imposed especially on a permanent basis.


I would like to be able to enjoy downtown events sometimes but parking and congestion is a pain. When I went to La Machine last year, we met at a bus stop that had service direct to downtown, knowing that our return would be late. This worked like a charm. Once we add in a transfer starting in November, forget it. This adds too much uncertainty and there are no park n ride alternatives. I have spoken to Torontonians about this sort of thing. Guess what? if they want to go downtown, they use a park n ride lot at a subway station so there is no transfers. I guess even big city people don't respect the idea that transfers are good for us, especially late at night.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Excuse me. Get rid of the transfer at Greenboro. Automatically, there is a 5 to 10 minute saving. Get it?

Ideally, you should be taking a bus route that goes straight to Hurdman, not switching buses at Greenboro.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ideally, you should be taking a bus route that goes straight to Hurdman, not switching buses at Greenboro.

Right ideally that bus would exist during off-peaks. You both agree, hurrah.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

My bad, I did mis-quote the schedule. It is closer to 16 minutes per the schedule, but it can routinely take longer.

Blossom Park is one of the few neighbourhoods in the Greenbelt that will lack direct bus service to Line 1, even after Stage 2 opens.

It does have direct service to Line 2, but Line 2 doesn't go right downtown, and even the bus service to Line 2 is circuitous. Better bus service along Bank St. south of Hunt Club is needed.

I'm actually a strong supporter of our LRT projects but I'm disappointed that we are missing an opportunity to use the operational $ savings of LRT to further increase transit ridership by having a robust and frequent bus network. Instead we're keeping our bus network the same (or worse) and taking the savings out of the transit budget.

Your area needs an express bus that goes does the southeast transitway to let you connect at Hurdman. You're absolutely right about that. That, however, does not automatically extend to an argument that Line 2 is deficient. Seems pretty reasonable to me that planners might want to force more ridership towards inbound Hurdman based on how capacity balances out between Hurdman and Bayview.

My issue with some of the posters on this forum is that they seems fixated on their own personal transit problems and thinks policy for the entire city should be formulated around that. Some of those views are pretty reasonable. I may not like Uhuniau's resort to hyperbole, but I agree with a lot of his views. And some of these views tend to nonsensical and nonfactual hysterics which I can't resist calling out. Like arguing that Bayview will be like Yonge/Bloor without any supporting data at all.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your area needs an express bus that goes does the southeast transitway to let you connect at Hurdman. You're absolutely right about that. That, however, does not automatically extend to an argument that Line 2 is deficient. Seems pretty reasonable to me that planners might want to force more ridership towards inbound Hurdman based on how capacity balances out between Hurdman and Bayview.

My issue with some of the posters on this forum is that they seems fixated on their own personal transit problems and thinks policy for the entire city should be formulated around that. Some of those views are pretty reasonable. I may not like Uhuniau's resort to hyperbole, but I agree with a lot of his views. And some of these views tend to nonsensical and nonfactual hysterics. Like arguing that Bayview will be like Yonge/Bloor.

Wait and see. Of course, this depends on whether Trillium Line Phase 2 is successful, when the new Civic campus is built, how many towers go up in Little Italy and if STO also connects to Bayview. If all of this happens, the number of people going through Bayview will explode. All I am pointing out are future risks. You are clearly dismissing them as you have the right to do. But, don't say I am being hysterical. It is simply my long-term concern. I have had a pretty good track record of predicting outcomes as our transit system has evolved since I have joined this board in 2006.


I will say one final thing about comparing Bloor-Yonge versus Bayview. The reason we have a potential problem is because of the frequency differential between the two lines. Not because of the absolute number of people. I am no expert on the TTC, but I highly doubt there is a problem at Kennedy station where the Bloor-Danforth meets the SRT. Why? Because both lines operate at similar frequencies. There will be space for transferring riders on every train. If the Trillium Line frequency was improved, then we automatically reduce the risks of overflows at Bayview in the long-term, at least until the Confederation Line comes close to capacity. This is not rocket science. It is simple mathematics.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wait and see. Of course, this depends on whether Trillium Line Phase 2 is successful, when the new Civic campus is built, how many towers go up in Little Italy and if STO also connects to Bayview. If all of this happens, the number of people going through Bayview will explode. All I am pointing out are future risks. You are clearly dismissing them as you have the right to do. But, don't say I am being hysterical. It is simply my long-term concern. I have had a pretty good track record of predicting outcomes as our transit system has evolved since I have joined this board in 2006.

So we have a problem if a whole bunch of things happen and there's absolutely no adjustment to capacity provided by the Confederation Line? You really do think engineers and planners are morons don't you? You should send OC Transpo your resume for an executive position. Tell them you're wiser than their entire planning department. Because you clearly see things they don't.

As long as Trillium Line is operating on 8-12 min headways and the Confederation Line is operating on 3 min headways, and as long as the Confederation Line trains have as much or more capacity than the Trillium Line trains, there will never be an issue of crush congestion as you see at Yonge/Bloor. We have the lower capacity and substantially lower frequency line dumping passengers onto the higher frequency and higher capacity line.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will say one final thing about comparing Bloor-Yonge versus Bayview. The reason we have a potential problem is because of the frequency differential between the two lines. Not because of the absolute number of people. I am no expert on the TTC, but I highly doubt there is a problem at Kennedy station where the Bloor-Danforth meets the SRT. Why? Because both lines operate at similar frequencies. There will be space for transferring riders on every train. If the Trillium Line frequency was improved, then we automatically reduce the risks of overflows at Bayview in the long-term, at least until the Confederation Line comes close to capacity. This is not rocket science. It is simple mathematics.

You really are clueless about transit in Toronto. So please stop with the comparisons. You've clearly not actually commuted through Kennedy.

The reason there's no congestion at Kennedy in the morning? The massive difference in capacity between the SRT and the subway trains. Frequency has zero to do with it. And that only works in the morning. In the evening, when a subway train is dumping riders at Kennedy, quite often you're waiting 5 deep or more to get on the SRT. Hence, why they are clamouring for a subway extension over there.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You really do think engineers and planners are morons don't you? You should send OC Transpo your resume for an executive position. Tell them you're wiser than their entire planning department. Because you clearly see things they don't.

You are very defensive of the City's engineering and planning personnel. We get it, they are professionals, but that doesn't mean they are omniscient or that they have thought of everything beyond a certain time-frame.

In the case of the Bayview transfer - I agree with LRT's Friend in imagining that if a fully-loaded Line 2 train attempts to transfer to a 70-80% capacity Line 1 problem there is going to be issues from the rider's perspective. The City predicts that Line 2 won't be at capacity (i.e. full trains at peak) until the 2040s, so this is a long-range issue.

From a capacity perspective it will only be an issue once the capacity of Line 1 at Bayview (i.e. the remaining capacity of eastbound trains at Bayview) is less than the capacity of Line 2. This might happen sooner than we think if ridership on Line 1 or Line 2 exceeds expectations. Obviously the solution is to increase capacity of Line 1, or attempt to reduce ridership on Line 2, OR extend Line 2 into the core.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You are very defensive of the City's engineering and planning personnel. We get it, they are professionals, but that doesn't mean they are omniscient or that they have thought of everything beyond a certain time-frame.

I am not suggesting they are infallible. But it's pretty damn ridiculous to suggest that they'd spend several hundred million dollars twin tracking the Trillium Line and it wouldn't occur to them that there'd be increased load on the Confederation Line. Come on. This borders on accusing them of lacking common sense. Forget talking about professional competence.

Now, whether the politicians would fund a solution is a different discussion.

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

From a capacity perspective it will only be an issue once the capacity of Line 1 at Bayview (i.e. the remaining capacity of eastbound trains at Bayview) is less than the capacity of Line 2. This might happen sooner than we think if ridership on Line 1 or Line 2 exceeds expectations. Obviously the solution is to increase capacity of Line 1, or attempt to reduce ridership on Line 2, OR extend Line 2 into the core.

There is so much room to increase capacity on Line 1. Meanwhile, Line 2 is effectively capped on capacity till it's twin tracked. That's what makes this whole scenario a reach. It will never be an issue until we discuss twin tracking Trillium.

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

In the case of the Bayview transfer - I agree with LRT's Friend in imagining that if a fully-loaded Line 2 train attempts to transfer to a 70-80% capacity Line 1 problem there is going to be issues from the rider's perspective. The City predicts that Line 2 won't be at capacity (i.e. full trains at peak) until the 2040s, so this is a long-range issue.

Like I said, there is no place in the world where you plan a major node to expect an arriving train to be 80% empty. Anybody expecting that should probably drive. We'll see in a few months. But I would bet nobody really waiting unless they just missed the train.

[lrt's friend]

You know, I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but is it necessary to lecture me?

Why would we want to repress ideas from being presented on this board? I tend to think out of the box. I dream for something better. This is what I do on my job and in my volunteer capacities. I am a creative person. I think it is useful to have other opinions here and it does promote discussion. I am happy to see my 'out of the box' ideas promote.discussion.

I admit that I am not a fanboy. But, on the other hand, I am always looking for creative ideas that may make things better. I don't expect short term implementation, except when there is an easy solution. I realize that what I present may be contrary to the professionals, but I have seen some of my suggestions get implemented and othere get rejected and then get implemented later despite the professionals. On my professional side, I am persistent and a suprising number of my 'out of the box' ideas do get implemented with success. The people who 'tow the line', and there are many, tend to destroy creativity and often limit progress. I see this time and again including amongst the professional class.


I have been student of transit for decades. I read people's comments here and elsewhere and I happily learn from other's knowledge and expertise. I watch what is happening in cities around the world. I look at what has not worked that well and what I am really impressed with when I visit a city.


What I have seen in Ottawa is some cheaping out in certain areas with long term consequences while other things seem to be getting overbuilt at great expense. For example, I look at some of the stations and I think of the amount of money being spent. Yes, they will make an impression to visitors but beyond functionality, is it all necessary? Some of these stations may not be used that much. We cannot afford to run my neighbourhood bus to Hurdman, but we can spend millions to construct Cyrville station for a small fraction of the people who live on my bus line. The same applies when we fail to implement relatively inexpensive transit priority measures or we short turn a bus at Confederation Square instead running it to Bank Street making all of the CBD accessible within walking distance. Or when I see that the Bronson Avenue bus may terminate at Lyon instead of running to the Rideau Centre and therefore 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 off everybody on that corridor.

Ottawa's approach has been peculiar when I compare to countless other cities. They have created a plan that is not particularly flexible in delivering better service in the future. The focus is on the suburbs and ultimately for those who live outside the Greenbelt. This whole 5 km thing is nothing more than marketing nonsense. Sell it to the taxpayer but it doesn't mean that it will be attractive to someone living beyond walking distance from a station. I do think that those who live inside the Greenbelt deserve a better level of service in the future without this 5 km BS. Whether that is delivered by buses, streetcars, BRT, LRT or subways, I don't care. Just improve service so it is easier to get around an increasingly congested city. I do leave the mode up to the experts and the politicians who will determine what we can afford. Nevertheless, as a citiizen and taxpayer, I deserve the right to have and express an oppinion.


We will see how the public reacts come November. It should be interesting. Ultimately, this will be a vote on whether our politicians have made good choices for the last 10 years.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I said, there is no place in the world where you plan a major node to expect an arriving train to be 80% empty. Anybody expecting that should probably drive. We'll see in a few months. But I would bet nobody really waiting unless they just missed the train.

Of course we wouldn't plan on the train arriving 80% empty... I said it may be a problem if it arrived 80% full. If we're lucky the # of passengers unloaded at Tunney's post stage 2 will provide enough capacity to serve the transfer at Bayview.

Second, we will not see in a couple months. Line 2 is currently underutilized even with it's current capacity, peak load NB is often at Carleton, and often not during peak hours. We will only "see" once it is extended to Riverside South and it becomes more of a commuter route.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Of course we wouldn't plan on the train arriving 80% empty... I said it may be a problem if it arrived 80% full. If we're lucky the # of passengers unloaded at Tunney's post stage 2 will provide enough capacity to serve the transfer at Bayview.

Second, we will not see in a couple months. Line 2 is currently underutilized even with it's current capacity, peak load NB is often at Carleton, and often not during peak hours. We will only "see" once it is extended to Riverside South and it becomes more of a commuter route.

We are going to see something change. Riverside South will be the first community outside the Greenbelt to receive rail service despite the 10 year delay. The city is already on record wanting development out there to finance the Limebank extension. We are going to see an explosion of development both in Riverside South and Findlay Creek. And since it will precede a Barrhaven extension by a decade, people are going to flood across the Vimy bridge by bus and car to use it. There will be a sudden change in the user base with the opening of Phase 2. It will change fairly quickly from a student majority unless we screw up local transit service, which is very possible. The down side of this; it will become very difficult to have a one or two year shutdown for double tracking. This is why I express a degree of pessimism. The only way to double track at that point is to create a three transfer situation via the southeast transitway or a very slow bus on the current replacement route, which will not satisfy downtown commuters. Think about the 3 transfer situation. Transfer bus to rail in RS, back to bus at South Keys and back to rail at Hurdman. It is scary to think about it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Of course we wouldn't plan on the train arriving 80% empty... I said it may be a problem if it arrived 80% full. If we're lucky the # of passengers unloaded at Tunney's post stage 2 will provide enough capacity to serve the transfer at Bayview.

Second, we will not see in a couple months. Line 2 is currently underutilized even with it's current capacity, peak load NB is often at Carleton, and often not during peak hours. We will only "see" once it is extended to Riverside South and it becomes more of a commuter route.

Even after extending to Riverside South, the total capacity of the Trillium Line will not change that much. We're still talking 8 min headways and a maximum of say 540 pax per FLIRT. That's a max of 4320 riders per hour if we're generous, in 2021.

The Confederation Line has a capacity of 10 700 pulling into Bayview this November. So as long as there's 40% of the capacity free at Bayview, the transfers will be fine.

And that's just based on the numbers we have. OC Transpo will have nearly 3 years worth of data at the launch of Trillium Stage 2 and extra vehicles for the Confederation Line already built. So they can easily adjust capacity, if forecasts don't pan out. Not just extra trains, but even lengthening the trains themselves by adding an extra car to make it 59m long, would boost the capacity of each train to 330 pax at least.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Radster

I chuckle at the retail convos here. I was just in Sweden, now I am in Warsaw, and the sheer number and variety of retail at transit stations (be it metro, light rail, train etc), is unbelievable, and its often squeezed into small spaces in the passageways, like as if they dug a space of 10x10 ft and voila. Fast food, bakeries, newspapers, shoe repair, watch repair, sushi, electronics, you name it, most stations have it! Yet in Ottawa, we wonder where they will put one coffee shop, or if they will even put one in at all.
Its almost as if the people building these systems in Ottawa have no imagination and don't know what users of transit need or want.....errr wait, its because that's actually the case!

I was also in Warsaw this summer and noticed the same. I chalked it up to the low cost of labour. It is a bit of a catch 22 in Canada the rent and labour means they charge higher prices than elsewhere so only the desperate buy anything at these kiosks.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was also in Warsaw this summer and noticed the same. I chalked it up to the low cost of labour. It is a bit of a catch 22 in Canada the rent and labour means they charge higher prices than elsewhere so only the desperate buy anything at these kiosks.

Radster is wrong. Sort of. His viewpoint fails to take into account where we build stations. We often build stations at malls or near retail. What exactly would be the point of putting in retail at Blair or St. Laurent or any of our downtown stations? What store owner would want to set up in a station and limit the customer base to just transit users?

And that brings up another point. A lot of European stations have retail outside the fare paid zone. So that retail is easily accessible by the public. Retail at those stations is effectively a local mini-mall. We achieve the same thing with our actual malls. I suspect we'll see a lot more use of the malls near transit once the Confederation Line opens.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Ottawas growth has been weak yes, however, I would imagine a bunch of TODs and redevelopments happening as a result of the Confederation Line can lead to that ending. If you look at Vancouvers growth on Cambie Post-Canada Line you can get a sense for the type of growth thats possible in less than ten years.

Ottawa’s growth has not been “weak”. It’s been in line with most other metros. Toronto and Vancouver are outliers. And Vancouver has a massive shortage of housing, so any housing sells. Not just TOD. This is not the case in Ottawa. Don’t mistake more downtown condos to for a dramatic shift in TOD. I think what we’re seeing is more a preference for downtown living than a preference for transit oriented living. Just look at places like Cyrville. A massive plot of land, and much more that is redevelopable. Just 5 km from downtown with a BRT station right there for years. We’ll see if the changeover from BRT to LRT makes a difference. I have my doubts.

In Ottawa, the largest growing communities remain the suburbs. And since we’ve now decided to make suburban commutes easier that trend is likely to hold.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I pretty strongly believe Ottawa will be the last independent CMA outside of Qb to get a serious rapid transit system for the next 20+ years.

I don’t get this. Winnipeg is building BRT. KWC might actually have their LRT open before us. London is planning their BRT. Quebec City is planning their LRT. If anything, we’re seeing a real transit renaissance in Canada.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

That combined with trends we are already starting to see (young people want to live closer to downtown, and are willing to move to mid-sized cities to make that happen). It wouldn't surprise me if we see a decent migration of young people from the GTA to Ottawa as part of that trend. Meanwhile, with all the demand in Toronto and Vancouver it seems like we can sustain more significant development and investment and Montreal still appears to be struggling to attract it, perhaps Ottawa will see some

If we can move away from being such a government town maybe. This has always been the issue with Ottawa. This city’s growth has always essentially been tied to the growth of the federal government. As it stands, the province’s population forecast sees the GTA going over 50% and Eastern Ontario’s share falling.

[sseguin]

Yesterday, we released our O-Train Interactive System map on O-Train Fans. It allows you to easily see and explore various details of the Confederation and Trillium lines, such as station and platform locations, track layout and switches and the Belfast and Walkley maintenance yards.

You can check it out here: www.otrainfans.ca/system-map

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Even after extending to Riverside South, the total capacity of the Trillium Line will not change that much. We're still talking 8 min headways and a maximum of say 540 pax per FLIRT. That's a max of 4320 riders per hour if we're generous, in 2021.

The Confederation Line has a capacity of 10 700 pulling into Bayview this November. So as long as there's 40% of the capacity free at Bayview, the transfers will be fine.

And that's just based on the numbers we have. OC Transpo will have nearly 3 years worth of data at the launch of Trillium Stage 2 and extra vehicles for the Confederation Line already built. So they can easily adjust capacity, if forecasts don't pan out. Not just extra trains, but even lengthening the trains themselves by adding an extra car to make it 59m long, would boost the capacity of each train to 330 pax at least.

I'm going to play both sides of this argument since the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

On one hand, your argument above is kind of like the joke about the statistician who decided to take up archery. On his first shot, he missed the target by a foot to the left. On his second shot, he missed the target by a foot to the right. He walked away happy because on average he got two bull's-eyes.

If (and that is a big if) the Trillium Line trains (at the projected 12 min frequency) are full when they arrive at Bayview, and if it takes 4 Confederation Line trains (at a 3 minute frequency) to clear the platform, statistically it might be meeting the demand, but it would be a very frustrating experience for the the people who have to watch 3 trains go by.

Having said that, I don't see the Trillium line trains being anywhere close to full at Bayview any time soon (if ever). Even after Stage 2, I expect Carleton will continue to be the busiest station on the Trillium line, with the majority of the riders getting off there. While it is true that some more will get on the train north of Carleton, I don't see anywhere close to 270 people getting on each train (1350 per hour) at Carling and Gladstone to fill them back up, even with massive TOD.

As a result, the eventual capacity limitations of the Trillium Line will be based on how many people are on the train when it approaches Carleton, not Bayview,

Now this is not to say that there will be no value in building a second downtown tunnel 30 years from now (sometime around 2050) as that will provide many other benifits, but it is a bit early to be planning that, as the city will have changed a lot by then and most of the current politicians will be long gone.