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

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Then how do you explain the Trim Rd. and airport extensions? They will supposedly* be funded exclusively by the federal and provincial governments. I can't imagine it will be used even as much as the Trillium line is used today. A similar thing can be said for the Limebank extension.

*it is unclear who will pay for cost overruns.

1) Don't turn down money when offered. You want them to keep cutting you cheques. Most of the time that's by showing good stewardship with the funds they send. Sometimes it's by addressing their political concerns.

2) There are arguably reasonable network considerations for both extensions. Connecting to the airport has always been a goal. And this lined up provincial, federal and airport funding. Is the city contributing to this at all?

And Trim is the best spot to put a park n ride in Orleans and the logical eventual terminus. At 3.5km, I think Trim is probably less than a hundred million with the station and parking lots/structures. I actually think Trim will see more ridership than what you see in the extension to Riverside South. Let's not forget that Orleans has some of the highest peak transit mode share in Ottawa. And they've had this through decades of sitting on buses trundling through the downtown stopway. Give them LRT and their ridership will rocket up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

^ I think Trim extension is justified for this reason. It's fairly inexpensive--only a relatively small addon considering the whole cost. And by linking it in with the park and ride it's now possible for the city to redevelop the Place D'Orleans park and ride. Trim is also better suited for the demographic that we should be targeting for the park and rides, namely the rural/exurban residents; with Orleans proper, we should instead be getting people onto connecting buses.

Didn't see your post. You're right. That's exactly what it is. It's cheap and effective in many way. Heck, they could trench the whole thing and it would probably still be less than $120mil. And it frees up not just the parking lot at Place, but could probably be used as a justification to let Place cut down on parking itself, as the mall and the area redevelops.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Trim extension has similar political motivations. It also has the added secondary benefit of tying in a Park and Ride that would have been a isolated if the Confed. Line wasn't extended to it. Basically, it wouldn't feel great to park at Trim just to shuttle to Place d'Orleans for your train. That would have been a similar situation to what is about to happen to the Riverview Park and Ride.

As well as the Eagleson (and to a lesser extend Fallowfield) Park and Ride.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Don't turn down money when offered. You want them to keep cutting you cheques. Most of the time that's by showing good stewardship with the funds they send. Sometimes it's by addressing their political concerns.

I never said to turn down the money (though I don't think the provincial and federal governments decided to to give the city as a surprise gift without any consultations). I was questioning this statement:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When federal and provincial dollars come, you really want to get the most bang for your buck, so that they keep cutting you cheques.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2) There are arguably reasonable network considerations for both extensions. Connecting to the airport has always been a goal. And this lined up provincial, federal and airport funding. Is the city contributing to this at all?

While it isn't costing the city anything, given what we are getting, I am not sure we will get the most bang for our buck with it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And Trim is the best spot to put a park n ride in Orleans and the logical eventual terminus.

Is the eastern most edge of developed land the best spot to put a Park and Ride? Won't it just spawn more sprawl?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

At 3.5km, I think Trim is probably less than a hundred million with the station and parking lots/structures. I actually think Trim will see more ridership than what you see in the extension to Riverside South.

That is a pretty low bar to be setting.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's not forget that Orleans has some of the highest peak transit mode share in Ottawa.

Yes, but Trim Rd won't be very helpful for the vast majority of Orleans Residents as it is too far east. Most that it will have Connexion bus service anyway, so don't need a park and ride. The Trim Rd Park and Ride will primarily serve Rockland. If the the extension had been to Tenth Line, that would have been a totally different story (though the proposed location for that station won't actually be that useful as it won't have any bus connections).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And they've had this through decades of sitting on buses trundling through the downtown stopway. Give them LRT and their ridership will rocket up.

We will have to see. IMHO, Ottawa got its unusually high modal share for a city its size because of one seat service from most places in the city. Obviously that isn't sustainable with city growth, but I am not convinced that the Confederation line will attract all that many new riders that aren't within walking distance of a station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While it isn't costing the city anything, given what we are getting, I am not sure we will get the most bang for our buck with it.

How are we not? They've connected the airport with the absolute minimum spending necessary.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Os the eastern most edge of developed land the best spot to put a Park and Ride? Won't it just spawn more sprawl?

Absolutely. But the ship has sailed on this one when we decided that LRT should leave the Greenbelt. There's already lots of development along Trim. And the park n ride is huge. So we know the ridership is there. Might as well build to it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is a pretty low bar to be setting.

How so? We're talking about comparisons to the Trillium Line. And whether the investment will offer returns. The comparison is quite relevant and valid. It's not an attempt to low-ball.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes, but Trim Rd won't be very helpful for the vast majority of Orleans Residents as it is too far east. Most that it will have Connexion bus service anyway, so don't need a park and ride. The Trim Rd Park and Ride will primarily serve Rockland. If the the extension had been to Tenth Line, that would have been a totally different story (though the proposed location for that station won't actually be that useful as it won't have any bus connections).

Nobody ever said it has to exclusively serve Orleans residents. Keeping traffic off the Queensway, by getting those folks from Cumberland, CR and the like to take transit from Trim, is quite a valid goal. And the way they fill up the lot today offers some hope for the LRT.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We will have to see. IMHO, Ottawa got its unusually high modal share for a city its size because of one seat service from most places in the city. Obviously that isn't sustainable with city growth, but I am not convinced that the Confederation line will attract all that many new riders that aren't within walking distance of a station.

Ottawa has high transit modal share because the streets downtown are narrow, access to the core —, parking is relatively expensive in the core and the largest employer in Ottawa (the feds) doesn't give free parking to most of its employees. Has very little to do with one seat service. Put those same constraints on Edmonton and you'd see their modal share double.

The one-seat ride also meant bus congestion leading a trip that was slow as molasses. People will be willing to transfer to services that are faster and have reasonable frequencies.

[lrt's friend]

We can argue all we want about getting the best bang for our buck and serving the greatest demand but if we continue to use this as excuse to spend a ton of money on people who are already using transit, we will never capture new ridership or ridership revenue. Investing in new transit corridors will add ridership that we don't have today. I heard the same arguments about spending $21M to get the Trillium Line going in the first place. Why would we waste our money on such a thing? As we saw, new service = new ridership = new revenue.

We also have to consider the amount of money we are actually investing. The Confederation Line is going to cost us at least $10B and what does it really buy us over what we had before? How much service improvement does it really deliver? How many new riders will use it? How much new revenue will it generate?

Consider that compared to providing new service to other parts of the city that may be presently under-served. They are gaining little from the Confederation Line other than added transfers and additional delays.

There is a reason why the councillor in Gloucester-South Nepean was defeated. It was about the poor quality of transportation that the city is providing in that ward. We have heard for years that we can't build roads until rail is built, but that has been delayed by 15 years. This was further discussed at my family event just today that included a former Gloucester Councillor. The comment was made that a ton of development fees are being collected in this ward but the impression is that this money is being dumped into City Hall and spent elsewhere in the city. Among older residents, there is still a resentment on how amalgamation has directed money away from local improvements. There is truth to this comment.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa has high transit modal share because the streets downtown are narrow, access to the core —, parking is relatively expensive in the core and the largest employer in Ottawa (the feds) doesn't give free parking to most of its employees. Has very little to do with one seat service. Put those same constraints on Edmonton and you'd see their modal share double.

The one-seat ride also meant bus congestion leading a trip that was slow as molasses. People will be willing to transfer to services that are faster and have reasonable frequencies.

Ottawa's investment in one seat express service was highly successful. When this all started with the Beacon Hill bullet around 1970, the old OTC still insisted on slow transfer service to new suburbs, that would feed into slow trunk routes that were totally uncompetitive with traffic on the Queensway.

What happened proved how successful it was as the downtown corridor became clogged.

But what have we done? We didn't fix the downtown problem in the cheapest manner as possible and invested in new routes such as the Trillium Line and elsewhere. We took the Cadillac approach that required that we rip out our entire previous investment in the Transitways.

Ottawa's modal share is declining and even absolute ridership has fallen, whereas what Calgary and Edmonton and Vancouver has done is growing ridership. In every case, those cities are investing new rapid transit that is real that will make transit attractive to new people. What we are doing is spending a ton of money on the exact same corridor that we had before.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We also have to consider the amount of money we are actually investing. The Confederation Line is going to cost us at least $10B and what does it really buy us over what we had before? How much service improvement does it really deliver? How many new riders will use it? How much new revenue will it generate?

We'll see. It may well change more than you think. It may well also change less than I think.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How are we not? They've connected the airport with the absolute minimum spending necessary.

You will need a double (if not triple) transfer to get almost anywhere in the city. Yest that first transfer will be designed to work well, but it is still a pain with any amount of luggage.

Absolutely. But the ship has sailed on this one when we decided that LRT should leave the Greenbelt. There's already lots of development along Trim. And the park n ride is huge. So we know the ridership is there. Might as well build to it.

That is where I disagree with you. Extending LRT to the middle of the suburbs outside of the greenbelt won't encourage sprawl to the same extent as extending it to the far reaches of the suburbs.

How so? We're talking about comparisons to the Trillium Line. And whether the investment will offer returns. The comparison is quite relevant and valid. It's not an attempt to low-ball.

Providing 2700 PPHPD service to a community of under 15,000 isn't overkill in your mind?

Nobody ever said it has to exclusively serve Orleans residents. Keeping traffic off the Queensway, by getting those folks from Cumberland, CR and the like to take transit from Trim, is quite a valid goal. And the way they fill up the lot today offers some hope for the LRT.

We don't need to extend the Confederation line to their doorstep to encourage Cumberland et. al. residents to use transit. As for the lot today, it only has bus service 5 days a week. Not sure if the train will service it on weekends or not, but if there isn't demand for a bus to service it then, I am not sure how they expect to get decent usage with a train.

Ottawa has high transit modal share because the streets downtown are narrow, access to the core —, parking is relatively expensive in the core and the largest employer in Ottawa (the feds) doesn't give free parking to most of its employees. Has very little to do with one seat service. Put those same constraints on Edmonton and you'd see their modal share double.

Those are other good reasons, but I wouldn't dismiss the one seat ride as a significant contributing factor.

The one-seat ride also meant bus congestion leading a trip that was slow as molasses. People will be willing to transfer to services that are faster and have reasonable frequencies.

It wasn't always that way. It only started happening once the streets reached peak capacity. They have tried to fix it by changing light priorities and only using high capacity buses along Albert/Slater during peak periods, but those measures can only do so much.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You will need a double (if not triple) transfer to get almost anywhere in the city. Yest that first transfer will be designed to work well, but it is still a pain with any amount of luggage.

Not that much better from the old bus. Except that instead of nice level platforms and escalators, you're lugging luggage on and off the bus. Does the forced transfer at South Keys —? Absolutely. But I think people are forgetting what a crappy experience the 97 is especially if you actually have more than just a small carry-on.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is where I disagree with you. Extending LRT to the middle of the suburbs outside of the greenbelt won't encourage sprawl to the same extent as extending it to the far reaches of the suburbs.

This is a marginal argument at best, when we're talking about 3.5 km. It's also entirely possible that those subdivisions still happen and people choose to drive instead since they perceive transit access to be insufficient.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We don't need to extend the Confederation line to their doorstep to encourage Cumberland et. al. residents to use transit. As for the lot today, it only has bus service 5 days a week. Not sure if the train will service it on weekends or not, but if there isn't demand for a bus to service it then, I am not sure how they expect to get decent usage with a train.

I don't see why we wouldn't provide service to Trim on the same schedule as elsewhere. The cost to do so is minimal.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Providing 2700 PPHPD service to a community of under 15,000 isn't overkill in your mind?

In your mind, should 100% of capacity be used departing a terminus? It's not just about the ridership of a given station. What' the catchment of that entire line?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Those are other good reasons, but I wouldn't dismiss the one seat ride as a significant contributing factor.

If this is true then we should see a drop in ridership from Orleans at the launch of the Confederation Line, since a lot of people will now have forced transfers. I am betting that doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It wasn't always that way. It only started happening once the streets reached peak capacity. They have tried to fix it by changing light priorities and only using high capacity buses along Albert/Slater during peak periods, but those measures can only do so much.

Regardless of why or how or when it happened, this has been reality for nearly two decades now. And through that time, Orleans has maintained higher transit mode share than any other suburb IIRC. I am okay with rewarding them when opportunities like this come up.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by White Pine

We'll see. It may well change more than you think. It may well also change less than I think.

Of course, you are right. Nobody knows. For the sake of this city, and the tax money that we have spent, I hope that you are right.

[lrt's friend]

The latest information that was posted on urbantoronto website indicates that the plan for South Keys does not have airport shuttle and main line trains at the platform at the same time so that you can simply walk across the platform to make the transfer going north to Bayview. The plan is to have mainline and airport shuttles alternate on a 6 minute schedule. The shuttle train will then use the pocket track to reverse direction. At all times there will be a six minute wait at South Keys to transfer between trains.


This information came from an official source. Part of the correspondence has been posted on the link below at Post 892.


https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-60

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The latest information that was posted on urbantoronto website indicates that the plan for South Keys does not have airport shuttle and main line trains at the platform at the same time so that you can simply walk across the platform to make the transfer going north to Bayview. The plan is to have mainline and airport shuttles alternate on a 6 minute schedule. The shuttle train will then use the pocket track to reverse direction. At all times there will be a six minute wait at South Keys to transfer between trains.


This information came from an official source. Part of the correspondence has been posted on the link below at Post 892.


https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-60

I also posted it here a couple of months ago.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8300415&postcount=657

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I also posted it here a couple of months ago.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8300415&postcount=657

I must have missed it. Sorry!

But this plan makes the most sense as far as train operations, although less appealing compared to original thoughts on the South Keys transfer.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not that much better from the old bus. Except that instead of nice level platforms and escalators, you're lugging luggage on and off the bus. Does the forced transfer at South Keys —? Absolutely. But I think people are forgetting what a crappy experience the 97 is especially if you actually have more than just a small carry-on.

The 97 currently takes you all the way downtown, though admittedly once the confederation line opens, it will only go as far as Hurdman.

The airport has escalators to the ground level. Speaking of escalators, Bayview won't have down escalators, so you will have to use the elevator or stairs. Admittedly, Hurdman will be the same.

With low floor buses, is the 97 all that crappy as the entrance is at curb level (I haven't taken it to the airport since they introduced them, I have used buses with luggage in Montreal and thought it a big problem)? The driver could lower the ramp (in theory) for you to roll your luggage on if the gap is too big.

This is a marginal argument at best, when we're talking about 3.5 km. It's also entirely possible that those subdivisions still happen and people choose to drive instead since they perceive transit access to be insufficient.

Maybe some will, but it will make it easier for sprawl to extend 3.5 km further than it otherwise would have.

I don't see why we wouldn't provide service to Trim on the same schedule as elsewhere. The cost to do so is minimal.

I don't know how minimal the cost is. Maintenance, energy and labour costs
are all proportional to the distance travelled. The fact that there are no buses to the Trim P&R on weekends is a sign to me that demand is very low. While it is true electric vehicles have lower maintenance and energy costs than an equivalent ICE vehicle, but a single Citidous Spirit is almost 4 times the mass of a New Flyer D60LFR (78 tons vs. 21 tons) and has 10 axles vs 3, so I expect the two to balance out. Both require 1 driver.

Currently, on weekdays, only about 1 in 3 buses that travel to/form Orleans from/to Downtown go to Trim Rd. Why would you expect 100% of the trains to go there? Service may be extended to weekends, but overall, at best, I would expect trains every 9 minutes during peak and every 15 minutes off peak (similar to what Moodie and Baseline will get).

In your mind, should 100% of capacity be used departing a terminus? It's not just about the ridership of a given station. What' the catchment of that entire line?

No, but I question the wisdom of running the trains at a very small fraction of capacity. The law of diminishing returns applies when you extend a high capacity transportation further and further out into the suburbs. Transfers will be needed for most anyway, so the line should be only extended far enough to take a large bulk of the passenger load. Other options can be found to ensure the buses are able to provide fast, efficient service to the station.

If this is true then we should see a drop in ridership from Orleans at the launch of the Confederation Line, since a lot of people will now have forced transfers. I am betting that doesn't happen.

As you say there are other factors, so you may not see a drop, but I am skeptical that we will see a surge beyond people trying out the new train.

Regardless of why or how or when it happened, this has been reality for nearly two decades now. And through that time, Orleans has maintained higher transit mode share than any other suburb IIRC. I am okay with rewarding them when opportunities like this come up.

How is it a reward for Orleans when few in Orleans will actually find it useful? Currently, the only buses that effectively* feed into Trim are the 22, 122 and 221. They may modify the 33/233 (most likely combined into one route) to feed into Trim. Anything west of that is a significant backtrack.

*The 38 also feeds it, but few if anyone would use it to transfer to/from the LRT at Trim, as it heads west, providing local service on Jeanne-d'Arc.

[lrt's friend]

Speaking of escalators, Bayview won't have down escalators, so you will have to use the elevator or stairs. Admittedly, Hurdman will be the same.

This is a stunning revelation given the plan for airport service. Does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing? I guess even the experts realize that virtually no travellers will actually use the airport shuttle to go downtown with luggage in hand and in this particular case, the reverse trip. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As far as rail service across the Greenbelt, whether the Trillium Line or Confederation Line. Given the design of our city and the growth points with or without rail, we have no choice but to build rail across the Greenbelt, otherwise transit service and modal share will suffer. I don't see any big advantage of building busways through green field areas, given that it will require a wider corridor than rail. In the case of the Trillium Line, crossing the Greenbelt means crossing sensitive wetlands and we need to limit the damage done to those lands. Since it is already a rail corridor, it makes sense to use it as originally designed. The current situation with buses is not sustainable. Growth cannot continue to absorb more and more cars on the current road infrastructure and transit is suffering greatly because of the current road sharing situation.

As you say there are other factors, so you may not see a drop, but I am skeptical that we will see a surge beyond people trying out the new train.

I am equally skeptical but we will see.

[lrt's friend]

How is it a reward for Orleans when few in Orleans will actually find it useful? Currently, the only buses that effectively* feed into Trim are the 22, 122 and 221. They may modify the 33/233 (most likely combined into one route) to feed into Trim. Anything west of that is a significant backtrack.

*The 38 also feeds it, but few if anyone would use it to transfer to/from the LRT at Trim, as it heads west, providing local service on Jeanne-d'Arc.

I don't understand this whole reward thinking. Why is modal share higher in Orleans than elsewhere? Some thought needs to be put into this. Maybe there is something that we can learn to improve modal share in other parts of the city. Certainly, not building good quality transit to other parts of the city based on a 'reward' system does not increase modal share in those other parts of the city. Could it not be, that our transit system is not meeting the needs of those living in those other parts of the city?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't understand this whole reward thinking. Why is modal share higher in Orleans than elsewhere? Some thought needs to be put into this. Maybe there is something that we can learn to improve modal share in other parts of the city. Certainly, not building good quality transit to other parts of the city based on a 'reward' system does not increase modal share in those other parts of the city. Could it not be, that our transit system is not meeting the needs of those living in those other parts of the city?

Demographics. Orleans has more federal public servants than Kanata and Barrhaven because Orleans has more francophones than the other two and francophones are more likely be bilingual. And federal public servants are OC Transpo's bread and butter.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Demographics. Orleans has more federal public servants than Kanata and Barrhaven because Orleans has more francophones than the other two and francophones are more likely be bilingual. And federal public servants are OC Transpo's bread and butter.

This points to the need to look at things differently. It used to be that pulp and paper workers were also heavy users of transit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Demographics. Orleans has more federal public servants than Kanata and Barrhaven because Orleans has more francophones than the other two and francophones are more likely be bilingual. And federal public servants are OC Transpo's bread and butter.

That is part of it, yes. Another part is that Orleans is closer to downtown than Kanata and Barrhaven. Also, Kanata at least, has more local employment opportunities, so fewer are commuting to downtown.

[Truenorth00]

@roger1818 @lrt's friend

It's quite simple. If you guys are right, ridership should not recover to pre-construction levels in 2019. No weaseling out by citing "other factors". Have some cojones and place your bets now. Also, the whole "people trying it out" thing is not going to get ridership above 100 million. The novelty of the ride wears out in less than a week.

I am quite confident that ridership will be going back up. With any luck, we might be back up over 100 million, since 2019 will be the only year with not LRT construction and bus diversions. And I don't buy the thesis that people love single-seat rides so much that they'll resort to driving once they end. Even with the transfer, the LRT will be both faster and cheaper than their car during rush.

As to this argument about why reward ridership? Because any planner will tell you, the first goal is always to keep what you have. And having a system verging on utter failure thanks to bus congestion was not going to keep the ridership we had. Next, a higher modal share often means that your investments in that area will actually be rewarded with increased ridership. It's very rare to see modal share fall after investing in an area with high mode share to begin with. On the other hand, it's actually a risk that places not used to taking transit could avoid taking up transit after investment, because existing patterns are hard to break.