Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

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.

I am glad you're finally understanding what was wrong with the 2003 plan.

The reality was that they had the developers draft their transit plan and didn't bother listening to planners at all. There wasn't as much development in the south back then. So even more of the traffic was East-West.

But, of course, the sales pitch was that they'd make build a transit oriented community in the South and eventually transition the East-West traffic. I moved to Ottawa in 2006. Saw that plan, and on my first read called bullshit. Blew my mind that most Ottawa residents then, couldn't see through this developer led trash.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 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.

There's little that was reusable. The biggest value of the Transitway was offering up a ready made grade separate corridor. Beyond that, it's not like the station infrastructure on there was readily adapatable to rail with appropriate approach geometry, platform lengths, etc.

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Most of that wasn't reusable. So if they were going to rebuild all of it, they might as well use a common design language and come up with substantially improved infrastructure that are more appropriate for the usage they anticipate. The last bit is something people forget. The Transitway stations were never designed for the level of traffic that is anticipated for these stations.

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

The comparison to K-W is ridiculous. The Confederation Line will see several times the traffic. And the LRVs use are much larger too. Off-peak, I think the ION sees service every 15-30 mins. Honestly, I am not even sure LRT was justified in K-W.

People need to remember that the Confederation Line has ridership on par with many subway lines in North America. As such, the size of the stations built is entirely justified.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

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

This.

As an eager day one rider, I fully support them holding off and getting maximum leverage on RTG possible, even thought it's painful and costly for me.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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.

Yes, there is an upside as you presented.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am glad you're finally understanding what was wrong with the 2003 plan.

The reality was that they had the developers draft their transit plan and didn't bother listening to planners at all. There wasn't as much development in the south back then. So even more of the traffic was East-West.

But, of course, the sales pitch was that they'd make build a transit oriented community in the South and eventually transition the East-West traffic. I moved to Ottawa in 2006. Saw that plan, and on my first read called bullshit. Blew my mind that most Ottawa residents then, couldn't see through this developer led trash.

No matter where we build LRT, one developer or another is benefiting. You single out Riverside South but the same thing applies everywhere.

The more significant decision is not when plans are drawn up for LRT but when the politicians decide to include land within the urban boundary.

Once we start building and collecting development fees and property taxes, the city has an obligation to provide services. This has become a problem with development fees. They were originally intended to provide funding for local infrastructure, such as schools, parks, sports facilities and transit. From comments I have heard, this is no longer the case, and the city is using those fees as a cash cow to fund projects elsewhere in the city.

[lrt's friend]

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.

It would take a lot of planning to offer a temporary service affecting a large portion of the transit network. It isn't worth it.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It would take a lot of planning to offer a temporary service affecting a large portion of the transit network. It isn't worth it.

Not only that but it has already been ruled out by John Manconi when he was asked about that at the FEDCO meeting.

[rocketphish]

What we know about the latest LRT dispute and the impact to residents

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: February 13, 2019

It doesn’t look good for anyone who was hoping to ride the Confederation Line LRT by the end of April.

The public learned this week there’s a disagreement about the March 31 handover deadline of the $2.1-billion LRT system from the Rideau Transit Group to the City of Ottawa.

RTG, the builder, thinks it can deliver a fully completed, safe transit system by then. The city doesn’t believe it.

So where does that leave taxpayers and OC Transpo customers who have been waiting for six years while the rail line is being constructed?

Here’s what we know and don’t know.

If RTG doesn’t deliver the LRT system by March 31, when will it?

No one knows yet. For sure, though, the public would need even more patience. When RTG missed the Nov. 2, 2018 handover, it had 60 days to propose a new date. If RTG doesn’t deliver on March 31, it might not be until the end of May that the city knows when the consortium will try again. A new handover date must be at least a month after the last handover date. It’s up to RTG, not the city, to propose the handover date.

What’s the main problem with RTG being challenged to meet the March 31 deadline?

The trains. Ten of them are still far behind being ready for operations. Technicians are working on deficiencies. The city needs all 34 train vehicles for operations on Day 1. Without the full fleet, a comprehensive test of the LRT system can’t be accomplished before the keys are turned over to the city.

Can the city just accept some of the LRT system in the meantime and start running it, say, in the east end where construction is advanced?

No. The city says it won’t accept a partially completed transit system.

Is the city still incurring extra costs because of the LRT delay?

Yes. Buses are still following detours because the Transitway has been converted to rail. As long as the detours are still happening, the costs will add up. The city’s extra expenses totalled $25 million as of early December 2018. The city is billing RTG for the overruns, but RTG is resisting the city’s claim that the builder should pay up. The dispute will land in court if it can’t be resolved in mediation.

Is RTG being penalized for not meeting the deadlines?

Yes. The builder faces a $1-million penalty if it doesn’t deliver the transit system on March 31, just like it did when it missed the Nov. 2, 2018 deadline. However, a penalty under the project agreement didn’t apply to the first missed deadline on May 24, 2018.

Is there any silver lining to LRT being delayed again?

Somewhat. Because this winter has been punishing, RTG can test the LRT system in extreme conditions. Bus drivers who have been expecting to be laid off at the start of LRT can keep their jobs a bit longer. The city could save a bit of money from not having to maintain the LRT system if it actually recoups the $25 million in overruns from RTG. And, Transpo has even more time to fine-tune their marketing and communications for LRT.

How will the city’s experience with RTG affect their long-term relationship?

To be determined. RTG, through its Rideau Transit Maintenance arm, will be responsible for maintaining the LRT system for 30 years after it’s finally up and running. The faces at RTG and city hall will change, probably several times, over 30 years, so the trials and tribulations of 2018-2019 could be long forgotten. For now, Peter Lauch, the CEO of RTG, and John Manconi, the city’s general manager of transportation, seem to have a decent working relationship.

SNC-Lavalin is one of the partners of RTG. Considering all the hubbub on Parliament Hill regarding the company, is city hall concerned?

It doesn’t appear so. Mayor Jim Watson said city staff haven’t flagged any problems working with the firm. SNC-Lavalin, operating under the name TransitNEXT, is also one of three shortlisted firms vying for the Trillium Line expansion contract under the city’s Stage 2 program. The city expects to recommend contract awards for the Confederation Line LRT and Trillium Line expansions on Feb. 27.

How long has LRT construction been going on?

About six years. Council approved the contract with RTG in December 2012. Construction started the following spring. The transit system was originally expected to open around mid-2018.

How does a Stage 1 delay affect the start of construction for Stage 2?

Watson says construction on Stage 2 will still begin this year. The Trillium Line expansion is the likely candidate to get started sooner since only the transit station at Bayview has a direct link to Stage 1 construction.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...-lrt-dispute-and-the-impact-to-residents

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A big lesson for all other cities. Do not build busways with the idea of converting to LRT later. If LRT will eventually be needed, then build LRT from day one.

We are seeing enormous disruption that does not end with the opening of the Confederation Line. We are going to see enormous disruption again with Phase 2, and to a lesser degree with Phase 3.

Ignorant bullshit that no transit planner will agree with.

12.5 km of fully segregated, grade-separated LRT, with a capacity in excess of 20 000 pphpd would cost $2.5-4 billion if built from scratch. And probably closer to the high end in Ottawa's case. It would also have taken 8-10 years of actual construction time. See Eglinton in Toronto for a close example of cost and timeline for what it would take to build a fully segregated LRT in a city with no reserved corridor. The Transitway providing an exclusive, fully segregated corridor has easily saved $0.5-1 billion and at least 2-3 years of construction time. That's not minor, especially when you consider that a lot of it didn't require major construction efforts outside the core at the time it was built.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There needs to be an upgrade path without changing modes.

Ridiculous from a planning perspective. This would mean planning every rail line as a suburban metro. Just in case.

This is a recipe for ridiculous overengineering. And it ignores the opportunity cost of that spending on overcapacity. This is a terrible public policy perspective.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Upgrades also should not require shut down of the system for lengthy periods of time. An upgrade path needs to be considered in initial planning.

Construction time is not a function of upgrade path. It's a function of how much you are willing to spend and how much disruption you are willing to put up with. Give them $3 billion and let them work 24/7 with no noise restrictions and they could have finished all of Stage 1 in less than 3 years.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

On the other hand, Ottawa's conversion to LRT should be a warning to other cities. Whether, Ottawa's final product is a shining example for the future, we will find out soon but the process of getting there has been poor and will continue to be poor.

A purely ignorant perspective that no planner will agree with. They will all argue that the Transitway has allowed for some attraction and retention of ridership, leading to a buildup in demand which necessitated rail conversion. The Transitway has facilitated a very high level of ridership, particularly from this city's suburbs. The proof is in the numbers. Transit has a higher mode share than Edmonton and Calgary. And it is that higher modeshare that is in turn providing the numbers to justify a very high capacity LRT system (effectively a light metro).

Ottawa offers a great example. Particularly to mid-sized American cities, of how they can both build suburban higher order transit for cheap, and facilitate cheaper and faster conversion down the road.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

CBC article on the status of the LRVs : Joanne Chianello · CBC News · Posted: Feb 14, 2019 4:00 AM ET

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-buys-light-rail-train-no-track-record-1.5017483

Ottawa buys light-rail trains with no proven track record

So..... ok, we knew we were the first to run the Spirit..... that has consequences. Looks like we hit a few.
But..... it's a bit late in the game now for these kind of reasons for delayed trains , is it not ?
Did we not think, or were led softly to believe, that there was plenty of time to account for,
take care of, and overcome, most of these problems, in the plenty of time available to us ?

And..... is this what happened to those 2 LRVs from that feds assisted additional purchase ?
Inquiring minds would like to know !!

Still way too many questions, and still way too much secrecy.

<sigh>

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

CBC article on the status of the LRVs : Joanne Chianello · CBC News · Posted: Feb 14, 2019 4:00 AM ET

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-buys-light-rail-train-no-track-record-1.5017483

Ottawa buys light-rail trains with no proven track record

So..... ok, we knew we were the first to run the Spirit..... that has consequences. Looks like we hit a few.
But..... it's a bit late in the game now for these kind of reasons for delayed trains , is it not ?
Did we not think, or were led softly to believe, that there was plenty of time to account for,
take care of, and overcome, most of these problems, in the plenty of time available to us ?

And..... is this what happened to those 2 LRVs from that feds assisted additional purchase ?
Inquiring minds would like to know !!

Still way too many questions, and still way too much secrecy.

<sigh>

So the funny thing about this is that we we're all obsessed over the completion of the stations, and thought the vehicles themselves were moving along swimmingly. Now it turns out we would have been delayed this far no matter what, if the stations had completed last year on time we'd still be here right now because like ION we don't have enough trains to provide a service

[OCCheetos]

What exactly is different about the Spirit compared to other Citadis trains? The article says that they're designed to handle colder weather conditions, but what exactly does that have to do with the control system? This sounds more like an issue with Thales, no?

Also, with the 2 extra trains, are those counted in the 38 Stage 2 trains, or are we going to be getting 40 more trains over the next few years?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by 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.

I find that for the surface station, they built some impressive structures. It's in the tunnel, the most important part of the project, where they cheaped out. Shorting the platforms by 33%, removing platform barriers, the placement of the stations and/or number of stations (Lyon and Parliament are very close to one another, with a huge gap east to the Canal and Rideau), removing the double escalators at Lyon and Parliament, that maze of an entrance to PdV's concourse, the narrow platforms, the cheap materials...

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

What exactly is different about the Spirit compared to other Citadis trains? The article says that they're designed to handle colder weather conditions, but what exactly does that have to do with the control system? This sounds more like an issue with Thales, no?

Also, with the 2 extra trains, are those counted in the 38 Stage 2 trains, or are we going to be getting 40 more trains over the next few years?

Good Day.

For the Spirit being different from the Euro model it is based upon.... AFAIR it is a matter of the electrics (wiring, wiring harnesses, switches, controls, voltages), electronics (computers (not Thales), sensors, displays, voltages), and even some of the mechanicals (bogies, wheels, etc), being converted to North American standards - which have and has caused problems in other manufacturers' trains and LRVs in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

As for those "2 extra" LRVs (one 2-vehicle train ?), that's what beats the snot out of me on this numbers game. We Shall See !?!

NoJoy!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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'm not convinced that if the N/S rail had included a tunnel, we would have been in a better position. The N/S plan's rolling stock was shorter streetcar type vehicles therefore, any proposed tunnel stations might have been much smaller than what we're ending up with (today's tunnel stations are arguably too small, but N/S hypothetical stations might have been way to small.)

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I find that for the surface station, they built some impressive structures. It's in the tunnel, the most important part of the project, where they cheaped out. Shorting the platforms by 33%, removing platform barriers, the placement of the stations and/or number of stations (Lyon and Parliament are very close to one another, with a huge gap east to the Canal and Rideau), removing the double escalators at Lyon and Parliament, that maze of an entrance to PdV's concourse, the narrow platforms, the cheap materials...

Good Day. Yup.....big time yup. All part and parcel of Jimmy's foul-up from his time in Queen's Park, and his recovery attempt (carefully covered) at cheaping out the system to stay in his own imposed cheap-out budget as mayor when he discovered Ottawa actually wanted this thing he despised. Most of his alterations were on the tunnel section - the tunnel itself, the routing, and the stations - number of and placement. As a result of the re-routing, we were stuck with a narrow corridor, which is what has given us the extremely narrow Lyon and Parl stations.

NoJoy!

[J.OT13]

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.

YES!!!! This!!!! I'm glad you see it that way. The North-South plan wasn't terrible in it of itself. The problem was that the TMP fully omitted the capacity issues downtown and the needs of East-West riders. That's why the O'Brien era council had to blow it up and start from scratch. It was more of a big political move than what was maybe necessary.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not convinced that if the N/S rail had included a tunnel, we would have been in a better position. The N/S plan's rolling stock was shorter streetcar type vehicles therefore, any proposed tunnel stations might have been much smaller than what we're ending up with (today's tunnel stations are arguably too small, but N/S hypothetical stations might have been way to small.)

That's fair enough, and I probably should have qualified my statement by saying a 2006 N/S line, with a downtown tunnel, and using the vehicles they are going to use on the Confederation Line, instead of shorter vehicles.

This is also why I don't look back at "what if's" very often. Yes, a hypothetical N/S line w/ tunnel might have mitigated some of the challenges we are seeing with transitioning between a busway and LRT, but as you said, it could have resulted in shorter platforms, creating a whole new set of problems as the system expanded. No plan is perfect and despite the setbacks right now, and the delay to modernizing the Trillium Line, I still think Ottawa made the right choice in terms of LRT plans.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

CBC article on the status of the LRVs : Joanne Chianello · CBC News · Posted: Feb 14, 2019 4:00 AM ET

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-buys-light-rail-train-no-track-record-1.5017483

Ottawa buys light-rail trains with no proven track record

So..... ok, we knew we were the first to run the Spirit..... that has consequences. Looks like we hit a few.
But..... it's a bit late in the game now for these kind of reasons for delayed trains , is it not ?
Did we not think, or were led softly to believe, that there was plenty of time to account for,
take care of, and overcome, most of these problems, in the plenty of time available to us ?

And..... is this what happened to those 2 LRVs from that feds assisted additional purchase ?
Inquiring minds would like to know !!

Still way too many questions, and still way too much secrecy.

<sigh>

Yes, these trains are first to market. This is quite common. The alternative would have been Bombardier. Those trains have been on the market for a while yet they continue to miss deadline by not just a few months, but years. Even trains delivered are highly defective and have to be taken out of service for months at a time. I don't know who would have provided the rolling stock for the third bidder, but no way of knowing if we would have had trouble with them as well.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not convinced that if the N/S rail had included a tunnel, we would have been in a better position. The N/S plan's rolling stock was shorter streetcar type vehicles therefore, any proposed tunnel stations might have been much smaller than what we're ending up with (today's tunnel stations are arguably too small, but N/S hypothetical stations might have been way to small.)

This is all hypothetical of course. Who knows what would have happened. But any tunnel plan needed to be future proofed as we have done. So, you would hope that a tunnel with the N/S route would have likewise been future proofed. It would be foolish to build a tunnel with insufficient capacity for future expansion of the network.

It didn't matter regarding the vehicles. Trains could be lengthened as needed. It is pretty clear with the fiasco that happened in 2006, that we were not going to buy Siemens vehicles. However, if we had proceeded, I am sure there would have been a compatible Siemens model (maybe even a longer version of the same model) that would have serviced an East-West line well.

It is easy to speculate about a positive or negative outcome.