Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not convinced that the issues were with conversion of the transitway to rail. The biggest issue was with the tunnel, which wasn't part of the transitway. Unfortunately, delays in other parts of the project resulted in the parts of the transitway being converted to be held hostage.

I do agree that the tunnel was probably the biggest reason for the delay. And I think that when it comes to relatively simple stretches of the Transitway, conversion might be able to done at a decent speed (might be the appropriate word). But the need to build new stations and platforms, ensure proper drainage for the rail bed, electrical work, etc, do mean that the conversion is not as simple and straight-forward as it was sometimes sold.

Personally, I think the conversion process will go exactly as I would have expected. And even though conversion (when it comes to phase 2 and 3), does mean that some sections will be shutdown for 18-24 months, that is a reasonable time frame to revamp and modernize a busway corridor into one for LRT.

[Acajack]

Regarding "conversion", ever since this project began I've always had the lingering sense that in many cases not much of a thought or chance was given to re-using a lot of the Transitway's infrastructure.

In many cases it seems like the decision was made to give the Confederation Line its own "signature", regardless of whether the Transitway stuff could realistically have been used or not.

If you compare the new Confederation Line stations to the stations on K-W's ION system or even Montreal's suburban trains (or several other systems in North America), the O-Train people definitely didn't cheap out on that part of the project.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Rail conversion, which was a point of discussion since day one back in the early 80s was always oversold. It was never really considered properly.

Rail was discussed back in the 70s when Edmonton and Calgary chose LRT and Ottawa chose busways. The difference was that Edmonton and Calgary had access to Alberta's special Heritage fund from oil royalties.

For its period of usefulness, Ottawa's Transitways were the most successful of the three. Edmonton's tunnel proved to be an anchor for a generation, with the system failing to gain high ridership that really negatively affected public support for expansion.

I think the big problem was we waited too long to convert the Transitway to rail. Back in the 90's, OC Transpo realized that there were issues downtown, but they though that they could fix it with improved transit priority measures. They helped for a while, but eventually they too reached capacity and nothing more could be done.

If back then they said, "we are reaching capacity, we might be able to delay things for 10-15 years, but we need a permanent fix." They could have inlaid rail in the transitway and downtown to buy a bit more time (surface LRT downtown has a bit more capacity than BRT, but not much). The tunnel could then have been independent of the transitway conversion. By the time 2011 came along, it was too late to consider surface LRT.

The problem with the 2006 plan was that it did little to nothing to resolve the capacity issues downtown. If anything, they made things worse by having buses and trains share the streets.

[Acajack]

Thinking about this Transitway repurposing a bit further, it seems to me that the following stations could all have been repurposed to some degree:

Blair
Cyrville
St Laurent
Train (Tremblay)
Lees
Campus (uOttawa)
Tunney's Pasture

Hurdman could not have, and LeBreton (Pimisi) and Bayview weren't true stations to begin with.

Rideau, Lyon and Parliament are all totally new stations of course.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think the big problem was we waited too long to convert the Transitway to rail. Back in the 90's, OC Transpo realized that there were issues downtown, but they though that they could fix it with improved transit priority measures. They helped for a while, but eventually they too reached capacity and nothing more could be done.

If back then they said, "we are reaching capacity, we might be able to delay things for 10-15 years, but we need a permanent fix." They could have inlaid rail in the transitway and downtown to buy a bit more time (surface LRT downtown has a bit more capacity than BRT, but not much). The tunnel could then have been independent of the transitway conversion. By the time 2011 came along, it was too late to consider surface LRT.

The problem with the 2006 plan was that it did little to nothing to resolve the capacity issues downtown. If anything, they made things worse by having buses and trains share the streets.

I think whether you converted the Transitway when they did, or went with your suggestion, or started off with LRT in the first place, they all lead to pretty much the same spot we are in today. Every option involves some kind of trade offs over the course of the past 3 decades. There would have been issues with downtown capacity, shutting down parts of the Transitway for a year or two at a time, etc.

The only scenario I see that would have made a difference is if the 2006 plan had been with a tunnel, instead of surface rail, which would have saved the need to scrap that plan, and added another 4 or 5 years to LRT becoming a reality. But that didn't happen, and life goes on.

I would still argue that the city has achieved the best outcome it could over the past 3 and a half decades. The Transitway did a great job building transit ridership. This LRT will be modern, and have the kind of capacity, speed and service to push urban and sustainable development forward in Ottawa for at least another 3 decades, and probably a bit longer than that. RTG just needs to do their job so that phase 1 can open and the city can move on to phase 2.

[swimmer_spe]

If the sink hole had not occurred, would this project have been done on schedule?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the sink hole had not occurred, would this project have been done on schedule?

Hard to say, but given that most of the remaining delays seem related to vehicles I tend to doubt it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think the big problem was we waited too long to convert the Transitway to rail. Back in the 90's, OC Transpo realized that there were issues downtown, but they though that they could fix it with improved transit priority measures. They helped for a while, but eventually they too reached capacity and nothing more could be done.

If back then they said, "we are reaching capacity, we might be able to delay things for 10-15 years, but we need a permanent fix." They could have inlaid rail in the transitway and downtown to buy a bit more time (surface LRT downtown has a bit more capacity than BRT, but not much). The tunnel could then have been independent of the transitway conversion. By the time 2011 came along, it was too late to consider surface LRT.

The problem with the 2006 plan was that it did little to nothing to resolve the capacity issues downtown. If anything, they made things worse by having buses and trains share the streets

Reflecting back, the immediate downtown problem with the N/S plan killed the project but there was a far bigger problem. When they came up with the 2003 TMP, they didn't even consider the crunch that was happening downtown. They thought a 30% reduction in buses downtown would make the N/S project work, and maybe it would have for a time, but there was no long term idea on what to do downtown. In that respect, our politicians did us no favours by not planning the issue better. We could have moved faster if a downtown tunnel was already on the books as part of the 2003 TMP. Instead, we had to completely replace the TMP and to some degree, they threw the baby out with the bath water in the process. Lots of planning was trashed that I found pretty disappointing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Hard to say, but given that most of the remaining delays seem related to vehicles I tend to doubt it.

Would the delays with the vehicles be not so noticeable?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Reflecting back, the immediate downtown problem with the N/S plan killed the project but there was a far bigger problem. When they came up with the 2003 TMP, they didn't even consider the crunch that was happening downtown. They thought a 30% reduction in buses downtown would make the N/S project work, and maybe it would have for a time, but there was no long term idea on what to do downtown. In that respect, our politicians did us no favours by not planning the issue better. We could have moved faster if a downtown tunnel was already on the books as part of the 2003 TMP. Instead, we had to completely replace the TMP and to some degree, they threw the baby out with the bath water in the process. Lots of planning was trashed that I found pretty disappointing.

Don't forget the role that politics had on the changing plans. From a totally rational perspective it would have made a lot more sense to modernize the Trillium Line, and build a downtown tunnel first, and then work on converting the existing Transitway to LRT. But the pressure from Orleans, Barrhaven, and Kanata has been so strong that the Trillium Line has remained largely untouched with the focus being on bringing LRT to those suburbs, first and foremost.

The same is true of transit along Rideau/Montreal Rd. The city identified that corridor as one of key interest. And it, like the Trillium Line, is hugely important in the cities goals of being able to develop more urban, inner city development. But until the suburbs have their connections, these other projects are not going to move forward at the pace they should. I don't think it is necessarily bad that events have played out this way, but it was a miscalculation by the city in the early 2000's to underestimate the influence the satellite suburban regions would have over who saw LRT first.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Would the delays with the vehicles be not so noticeable?

They were supposed to hand over the system in May, 2018. As of yesterday’s council meeting they had only 14 fully signed off vehicles. I think we might have ended up like Waterloo with a complete line and no trains.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They were supposed to hand over the system in May, 2018. As of yesterday’s council meeting they had only 14 fully signed off vehicles. I think we might have ended up like Waterloo with a complete line and no trains.

Again, there are 24 trains (54:55) that have been signed off on.
I'm not sure why CBC has been reporting 14 since the reporters originally tweeted 24. 10 trains still need work, and well... 34 - 10 is 24.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Don't forget the role that politics had on the changing plans. From a totally rational perspective it would have made a lot more sense to modernize the Trillium Line, and build a downtown tunnel first, and then work on converting the existing Transitway to LRT. But the pressure from Orleans, Barrhaven, and Kanata has been so strong that the Trillium Line has remained largely untouched with the focus being on bringing LRT to those suburbs, first and foremost.

The same is true of transit along Rideau/Montreal Rd. The city identified that corridor as one of key interest. And it, like the Trillium Line, is hugely important in the cities goals of being able to develop more urban, inner city development. But until the suburbs have their connections, these other projects are not going to move forward at the pace they should. I don't think it is necessarily bad that events have played out this way, but it was a miscalculation by the city in the early 2000's to underestimate the influence the satellite suburban regions would have over who saw LRT first.

There was also the desire by John Baird to stab Bob Chiarelli in the back politically, which was disgusting.

The original plan was a whole lot different with most of the rail lines restricted to inside the Greenbelt and busways to the outer suburbs. The exception being the southern suburbs which was designated rail because a rail line already existed across the Greenbelt.

Of course the flaw was the lack of a downtown tunnel. Whether the tunnel should have been for rail or for buses, it would have solved the problem for decades. Buses on the surface, rail underground or visa versa.

We became obsessed with removing the vast majority of buses from downtown and with operational efficiencies, which I am thinking are more of a phantom than we wish to admit. The city's investment has to be repaid.

Don't forget also the Carling LRT plan that survived the new TMP but I doubt will ever be built.

So when we changed the TMP, it switched from mainly an urban rail network to a mainly commuter rail network.

Funny how so many are now wishing for an urban plan while also saying the original concept was garbage.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Again, there are 24 trains (54:55) that have been signed off on.
I'm not sure why CBC has been reporting 14 since the reporters originally tweeted 24. 10 trains still need work, and well... 34 - 10 is 24.

They keep reporting 14, as recently as this morning.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-explainer-deadline-dispute-1.5016782

Edit: according to the recording 24 are signed off by the train control supplier but they are not all free of defects and fully complete, at least that is now I understand it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They keep reporting 14, as recently as this morning.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-explainer-deadline-dispute-1.5016782

Edit: according to the recording 24 are signed off by the train control supplier but they are not all free of defects and fully complete, at least that is now I understand it.

How can they be signed off if they are not free of defects or are not fully complete?

[Horus]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They were supposed to hand over the system in May, 2018. As of yesterday’s council meeting they had only 14 fully signed off vehicles. I think we might have ended up like Waterloo with a complete line and no trains.

Although delays in the track and tunnel construction may have slowed the progress of train delivery. No point in having a bunch of trains with no track to run on.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How can they be signed off if they are not free of defects or are not fully complete?

Not sure, but it might mean they are allowed on the tracks for testing but are not fully finished, sort of like how you can get an occupancy permit for a house even though everything isn’t finished.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There was also the desire by John Baird to stab Bob Chiarelli in the back politically, which was disgusting.

The original plan was a whole lot different with most of the rail lines restricted to inside the Greenbelt and busways to the outer suburbs. The exception being the southern suburbs which was designated rail because a rail line already existed across the Greenbelt.

Of course the flaw was the lack of a downtown tunnel. Whether the tunnel should have been for rail or for buses, it would have solved the problem for decades. Buses on the surface, rail underground or visa versa.

We became obsessed with removing the vast majority of buses from downtown and with operational efficiencies, which I am thinking are more of a phantom than we wish to admit. The city's investment has to be repaid.

Don't forget also the Carling LRT plan that survived the new TMP but I doubt will ever be built.

So when we changed the TMP, it switched from mainly an urban rail network to a mainly commuter rail network.

Funny how so many are now wishing for an urban plan while also saying the original concept was garbage.

Ahhh yes. I forgot about that whole Baird nonsense. It was pretty shameful.

One of the tough parts about the existing plan, and perhaps it was designed just for this reason, is that once they started building Phase 1 of the Confederation Line, it pretty much meant they have to continue and replace all the existing Transitway with LRT. It is necessary if the network, as a whole, is to function to its maximum efficiency.

And yes, the new plan does risk the potential for it to set a precedent of LRT being more of a commuter rail system, than an urban LRT system.

That said, I don't think it is all doom and gloom either. Having a large number of buses removed from downtown is going to make a difference, and make it more appealing to live in, work in, and to simply visit. And once the satellite suburbs are on track to get their LRT service, then it makes it a lot easier for the city to focus their attention back on improving the inner urban network. I also think it will be at least 3-5 years before discussions about what to do after the suburbs are sorted will really start to happen, which is fine. It just means more time for urban development and growth to take hold. And every building that goes up, and parking lot that disappears is just one more tick in favour of shifting transit planning back to the urban core and inside the greenbelt.

[CityTech]

So I heard at work today about the discrepancy between the competing claims of 14 and 24 trains being done. Apparently it's that 14 trains are signed off on and have a formal operating license or whatever it is that let's it be used, and 10 more are done but are still going through the final bits of paperwork to get those licenses. The last 10 actually have stuff that needs fixing.

If it really is only trains that are delaying, I'd say go for a partial opening. Open between Tunney's and Hurdman and have bus changes in the east delayed until after all trains are received.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by CityTech

So I heard at work today about the discrepancy between the competing claims of 14 and 24 trains being done. Apparently it's that 14 trains are signed off on and have a formal operating license or whatever it is that let's it be used, and 10 more are done but are still going through the final bits of paperwork to get those licenses. The last 10 actually have stuff that needs fixing.

If it really is only trains that are delaying, I'd say go for a partial opening. Open between Tunney's and Hurdman and have bus changes in the east delayed until after all trains are received.

The thing about partial openings, and why i think the city is dead set against it, is that it takes the pressure off RTG, if you think they're behind now just wait and see how long those remaining trains will take after a partial opening. Better we suffer for another month then deal with months of subpar service