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

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

One question that I think would be very useful to know the answer too is exactly what aspects of the T-Line upgrade require it to be shutdown?

The uh, money.

[Truenorth00]

Dunno where you guys come up with numbers.

10 minute frequency is okay to the suburbs? Really? Based on what demand pattern?

Transit systems and services are designed around peak load. There is no way that 10 min service to the burbs is adequate at peak. Just look at how many buses leave a suburbs during 10 mins of peak, and ask yourself if all those riders can fit on one set of twin LRVs. And East-West traffic is substantial enough and growing that the Confederation Line will consume all of the DOTT's capacity in the coming decades.

The Trillium Line has both substantially lower capacity and substantially lower demand. Interlining in such a scenario is both unnecessarily expensive and risky. Especially for a service with very little experience running high capacity rail services.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The uh, money.

Thank you. Very helpful answer.

What I was wondering about are very specific aspects of the project. I know that when it comes to realigning track that is in the middle of a right of way to make room for an extra set, that will require a shutdown. I would assume that replacing an overpass would require one as well. But what tunneling under Dows Lake? Could everything be completed up to the new portal so that tunneling could be done separate without interrupting operations?

And yes, I understand that anything can be done with enough money. It was a question of what absolutely requires a shutdown, no matter how much money is thrown at it, and what could be done without a shutdown, that would also not elevate the costs (for example, would constructing a station be much more expensive, or permissible given health and safety regulations, while the line was operating).

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Thank you. Very helpful answer.

What I was wondering about are very specific aspects of the project. I know that when it comes to realigning track that is in the middle of a right of way to make room for an extra set, that will require a shutdown. I would assume that replacing an overpass would require one as well. But what tunneling under Dows Lake? Could everything be completed up to the new portal so that tunneling could be done separate without interrupting operations?

And yes, I understand that anything can be done with enough money. It was a question of what absolutely requires a shutdown, no matter how much money is thrown at it, and what could be done without a shutdown, that would also not elevate the costs (for example, would constructing a station be much more expensive, or permissible given health and safety regulations, while the line was operating).

I think the one thing that wouldn't be able to avoid a shutdown is the Ellwood grade separation. They could divert the line eastward temporarily while the overpass is built, but that would require building new bridges over the Sawmill creek and Transitway (although those may eventually be required for a freight bypass anyway) and that would be ridiculously expensive and would still constrain the work on the overpass.

I think most overpasses could be done fairly quickly using bridge replacement methods, but then costs and complications factor in again. Going with that option, all overpasses could be replaced over a combined closure of a month, or maybe a week even.

The other thing that would require a closure is the widening of the ditch North of Carling. If that were done during a closure, they could widen the ditch, allocate the space for Carling's second platform, and clear the way to the second portal of the tunnel. It's mentioned in one of the old reports, but the tunneling would be done cut-and-cover over a single winter, but if they went with a separate adjacent tunnel it shouldn't require an over-winter closure of the existing tunnel.

With enough money you could maybe cram that down to a few months, or at least less than a year.

Those are the things I can think of off the top of my head.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Dunno where you guys come up with numbers.

10 minute frequency is okay to the suburbs? Really? Based on what demand pattern?

Transit systems and services are designed around peak load. There is no way that 10 min service to the burbs is adequate at peak. Just look at how many buses leave a suburbs during 10 mins of peak, and ask yourself if all those riders can fit on one set of twin LRVs. And East-West traffic is substantial enough and growing that the Confederation Line will consume all of the DOTT's capacity in the coming decades.

The Trillium Line has both substantially lower capacity and substantially lower demand. Interlining in such a scenario is both unnecessarily expensive and risky. Especially for a service with very little experience running high capacity rail services.

Given that in a best case, very unlikely scenario, interlining of the T-Line wouldn't happen for another 5 years (and 10 years out for that is more realistic), that gives OC Transpo several years to work through the inevitable challenges a new system will bring. Trying to push 30 trains an hour through the tunnel on opening day would definitely be a bad idea.

If the LRT system is so popular that it pushes the limits of capacity within a few decades, that wouldn't be a bad thing. That would mean it has become so insanely successful that it would be "the" darling transit system that everyone would want to replicate. And isn't the whole point of building transit to create a system that is so effective and efficient that it grows at that kind of pace?

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think the one thing that wouldn't be able to avoid a shutdown is the Ellwood grade separation. They could divert the line eastward temporarily while the overpass is built, but that would require building new bridges over the Sawmill creek and Transitway (although those may eventually be required for a freight bypass anyway) and that would be ridiculously expensive and would still constrain the work on the overpass.

I think most overpasses could be done fairly quickly using bridge replacement methods, but then costs and complications factor in again. Going with that option, all overpasses could be replaced over a combined closure of a month, or maybe a week even.

The other thing that would require a closure is the widening of the ditch North of Carling. If that were done during a closure, they could widen the ditch, allocate the space for Carling's second platform, and clear the way to the second portal of the tunnel. It's mentioned in one of the old reports, but the tunneling would be done cut-and-cover over a single winter, but if they went with a separate adjacent tunnel it shouldn't require an over-winter closure of the existing tunnel.

With enough money you could maybe cram that down to a few months, or at least less than a year.

Those are the things I can think of off the top of my head.

And given the rising costs of the LRT network, this is why I think those sorts of projects, the ones that are larger scale engineering works (like the Dows Lake tunnel, Rideau River bridge), or require shutdowns (track realignment, Ellwood grade separation, roughing in new stations in challenging areas, like Carling station, to name a few), should be the focus of the earlier rounds of work.

Once a single project closes the line, everything else resulting in a closure should be done at the same time. I get that because of the need for more specialized trades and companies on some aspects of the project you cannot have all of them going simultaneously. But, to me at least, step one should be preparing the corridor for future expansion. And maybe it is a drastic opinion, but to me, putting money into the T-Line without doing that is a waste and super short-sighted.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Dunno where you guys come up with numbers.

10 minute frequency is okay to the suburbs? Really? Based on what demand pattern?

Transit systems and services are designed around peak load. There is no way that 10 min service to the burbs is adequate at peak. Just look at how many buses leave a suburbs during 10 mins of peak, and ask yourself if all those riders can fit on one set of twin LRVs. And East-West traffic is substantial enough and growing that the Confederation Line will consume all of the DOTT's capacity in the coming decades.

The Trillium Line has both substantially lower capacity and substantially lower demand. Interlining in such a scenario is both unnecessarily expensive and risky. Especially for a service with very little experience running high capacity rail services.

Ultimately, this is the plan without the interlining. It amounts to the same thing. Passengers coming from 6 different directions assuming Gatineau also decides to feed passengers into the Confederation Line. They all have to fit into the trains entering the tunnel. Besides, Interlining is not rocket science. It has been implemented successfully in countless cities.

I don't know why 10 minute frequency in Kanata or Barrhaven is not adequate. Where the lines meet, more frequent service would be provided. Besides, there is still some flexibility in how service is distributed. For example, 4 trains per hour would be adequate for the airport. The extra 2 trains per hour could be placed on one of the other lines. At 90 second frequency, there is also an additional 4 trains per hour to play with, plus the additional section that could be added to each train to add capacity.

This is, of course, all theoretical and would take decades to implement. By then, we would have reached the capacity of the tunnel anyways, interlining or not.

I do not understand why favouring certain parts of the city over others is a good idea. LRT is a city building project and we are already seeing the uptick in high rise development particularly in more central areas including along the Trillium Line corridor. The tallest building in the city will be on the Trillium Line, at least for a few years.

I would also challenge where transit need is greatest. There are more pockets of high rise and high density development in the south end than other suburban parts of the city. For example, Hog's Back, Heron Gate, Elmvale, Southvale, Bridle Path, Riverside, Billings Bridge, Mooney's Bay and most of those are lower income developments and not fancy condos with BMWs in the underground parking lot.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

If the LRT system is so popular that it pushes the limits of capacity within a few decades, that wouldn't be a bad thing. That would mean it has become so insanely successful that it would be "the" darling transit system that everyone would want to replicate. And isn't the whole point of building transit to create a system that is so effective and efficient that it grows at that kind of pace?

Never said it's a bad thing. Just that the growth of Confederation Line ridership and the boost in frequencies necessary to accommodate that will mean the likelihood of an interlined service is low. Trillium riders need to suck it up and accept that transfers are going to be a reality for the foreseeable future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know why 10 minute frequency in Kanata or Barrhaven is not adequate.

They will have better than 10 min frequencies during peak, at launch. That should tell you what level of demand is both anticipated and considered necessary. Moreover, interlining at Bayview, means a cut in capacity between Bayview and Lincoln Fields. 10 min frequencies to Moodie and Basline, mean 5 min frequencies on the Bayview-Lincoln Fields stretch. If more frequencies are needed on this stretch (and probably will be necessary), interlining at Bayview vastly complicates the provision of such service.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is, of course, all theoretical and would take decades to implement. By then, we would have reached the capacity of the tunnel anyways, interlining or not.

I'd bet real money, you won't see interlining, even if they build a second tunnel. The costs to do so, just don't justify the boost in ridership. And never will. That opportunity cost tradeoff will always lean towards expansion. Whereas interlining is effectively capacity boosting in an existing stretch, something we don't do because we just don't spend billions building tons of tunnels with spare capacity.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do not understand why favouring certain parts of the city over others is a good idea.

You're whining because you have to transfer. Having to transfer doesn't mean other parts of the city are being "favoured" over your hood. Nobody is entitled to a transfer free ride. If it does work out that way for some, great for them. But there's no design principle for the planners that has equity in the number of transfers as a fundamental principle.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

LRT is a city building project and we are already seeing the uptick in high rise development particularly in more central areas including along the Trillium Line corridor. The tallest building in the city will be on the Trillium Line, at least for a few years.

None of this is relevant to whether service should be interlined or not.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would also challenge where transit need is greatest. There are more pockets of high rise and high density development in the south end than other suburban parts of the city. For example, Hog's Back, Heron Gate, Elmvale, Southvale, Bridle Path, Riverside, Billings Bridge, Mooney's Bay and most of those are lower income developments and not fancy condos with BMWs in the underground parking lot.

Transit is built first and foremost to move riders, not as some socioeconomic welfare scheme. The make of the car in the garage is irrelevant. What is relevant is how many people will get on within an 800m circle of that station or transfer from buses or get dropped off.

And it's a good thing that transit planners think that way. Your approach would have them fund lots of white elephants based on some vague concept of compassion necessitating billions in transit expenditure. I'm quite happy that transit planners in Ottawa are very pragmatic in addressing so much of the low hanging fruit first. When we have 200 km of LRT in 50-100 years, they can start talking about all the poor people who need billion dollar LRTs to relieve them of their lack of BMWs in the underground lot.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do not understand why favouring certain parts of the city over others is a good idea. LRT is a city building project and we are already seeing the uptick in high rise development particularly in more central areas including along the Trillium Line corridor. The tallest building in the city will be on the Trillium Line, at least for a few years.

I would also challenge where transit need is greatest. There are more pockets of high rise and high density development in the south end than other suburban parts of the city. For example, Hog's Back, Heron Gate, Elmvale, Southvale, Bridle Path, Riverside, Billings Bridge, Mooney's Bay and most of those are lower income developments and not fancy condos with BMWs in the underground parking lot.

This. Yes, you could make the argument that the C-Line was the right choice for the first wave of LRT building because it was needed to increase capacity and efficiency on an already busy Transitway. But you can just as easily make the argument that the T-Line is needed to serve new markets, and the existing, high density communities in the southern, inner suburbs.

And one of Ottawa's strengths is that it's real estate market is not at the same, bonkers, level that you see in Toronto or Vancouver. Affordability is something the city needs to maintain, and the T-Line has the potential to really unlock a lot of urban development, which will keep supply at higher level than without it, and help keep urban housing more affordable.

A T-Line that was double tracked from South Keys to Bayview, and interlined with the C-Line, that also largely replaced the 97 and had local network buses shuttling people to its stations that would see 5-7 minute frequencies would be incredibly well used. And with its connection to Carleton U, the airport (eventually), and serving more working class neighborhoods, it would also mean the T-Line infrastructure will see a lot of off-peak usage, making it an even more justifiable investment.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Never said it's a bad thing. Just that the growth of Confederation Line ridership and the boost in frequencies necessary to accommodate that will mean the likelihood of an interlined service is low. Trillium riders need to suck it up and accept that transfers are going to be a reality for the foreseeable future.

And, maybe that will be true. Maybe, once phase 2 is open, it will be such a huge success that by the time the lines get extended to Barrhaven and Kanata there will be little question of the need to run service every 3 or 4 minutes in order to meet demand. In which case, yes, the tunnel would only be able to accommodate the C-Line.

But, why is it so bad to keep the option of interlining open? If planned correctly, leaving that possibility doesn't actually cost anything. The same is true of leaving the possibility open for the T-Line to cross into Gatineau. It might not happen, but until interprovincial transit is actually dealt with in a meaningful way, there is no reason that door should be shut either.

The only reason that the T-Line shouldn't be interlined is if the C-Line alone is going to be so successful that it alone will push the tunnel to capacity in just 15-20 years. And if that happens, it will not only be a sign that the system is successful beyond imagination, but that planners were massively short-sighted in their vision for what kind of infrastructure was needed to support transit expansion in Ottawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And, maybe that will be true. Maybe, once phase 2 is open, it will be such a huge success that by the time the lines get extended to Barrhaven and Kanata there will be little question of the need to run service every 3 or 4 minutes in order to meet demand. In which case, yes, the tunnel would only be able to accommodate the C-Line.

We will literally be at those levels at launch of Phase 2. Whatever the frequency on the branches, it will be double in the central portion. So 10 min headways at a branch, means 5 min headways in the tunnel. 8 min headways at Baseline and Moodie mean 4 minute headways in the tunnel. Are you starting to see why interlining is becoming problematic?

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

But, why is it so bad to keep the option of interlining open? If planned correctly, leaving that possibility doesn't actually cost anything.

Where do people get the idea that something like this would be free? Aside from the infrastructure needed to enable a connection, the operational complexity involved absolutely incurs costs.

More broadly, when interlining occurs elsewhere, in my experience, you have a much more even load between branches. This is not what we'd have at Bayview. Indeed, I'm not sure interlining would see Bayview actually served by the Trillium Line.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

The same is true of leaving the possibility open for the T-Line to cross into Gatineau. It might not happen, but until interprovincial transit is actually dealt with in a meaningful way, there is no reason that door should be shut either.

What we left open is the possibility of a connection across the river. There's no specific requirement for the Trillium line to go across. And depending what happens in Gatineau, it may make more sense for their LRT to cross than the Trillium Line.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

The only reason that the T-Line shouldn't be interlined is if the C-Line alone is going to be so successful that it alone will push the tunnel to capacity in just 15-20 years. And if that happens, it will not only be a sign that the system is successful beyond imagination, but that planners were massively short-sighted in their vision for what kind of infrastructure was needed to support transit expansion in Ottawa.

Or it's a sign that money doesn't grown trees and the planners made the most of the resources they were allocated.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They will have better than 10 min frequencies during peak, at launch. That should tell you what level of demand is both anticipated and considered necessary. Moreover, interlining at Bayview, means a cut in capacity between Bayview and Lincoln Fields. 10 min frequencies to Moodie and Basline, mean 5 min frequencies on the Bayview-Lincoln Fields stretch. If more frequencies are needed on this stretch (and probably will be necessary), interlining at Bayview vastly complicates the provision of such service.

If the automated system is able to achieve 90 second headways, which is possible after a several years of operation, and experience, the DT tunnel could reach capacity of 40 trains per hour, in each direction. If you have 12 trains an hour leaving from both Kanata and Barrhaven, this will give 5 minute frequencies from the suburbs up until Lincoln Fields. From Lincoln Fields to Bayview, you would have a 2.5 minute frequency. That still leaves up to 16 more train an hour that can be put through the DT tunnel. You could actually bump up the number of trains serving Kanata and Barrhaven to 14 per hour (a train every 4.3 minutes from the suburbs and one every 2.2 minutes from Lincoln Fields to Bayview), and have 10 trains an hour coming from the T-Line onto the C-Line, and still be just a few trains short of maximum capacity.

Allocating just 25% of the DT tunnel capacity to the T-Line would allow it to be become a much more valuable part of the network. Even if it had just 20% of the tunnel capacity it could still run 4 downtown to airport trips, and 4 downtown to Riverside trips per hour (and 6 per hour from Riverside if the T-Line used 25% of the DT tunnel capacity). This would mean that stations like South Keys would have direct to downtown service every 7.5 minutes. And if the line was busy enough that more frequent service was needed, then it could get creative. It could add additional trains starting in Riverside and either terminate at Bayview (avoiding the use of DT tunnel capacity), or, have trains carry on across the river into Gatineau (if that link actually proves to be useful). This way buses feeding into the T-Line in Riverside and the southern suburbs can be timed so that they, under ideal situations, drop them off 3-4 minutes before a direct to downtown train arrives. But, if they happen to miss it, at least then there is the option of grabbing a train to Bayview and transferring there, at least getting their trip underway instead of waiting another 15 minutes for a direct train (or they could opt to wait for that direct train).

As I stated a few posts ago, unless the C-Line is so well used and has such explosive growth that its ridership alone would push the DT tunnel to reach capacity in 15-20 years, then the T-Line should be able to capitalize on that valuable piece of infrastructure.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We will literally be at those levels at launch of Phase 2. Whatever the frequency on the branches, it will be double in the central portion. So 10 min headways at a branch, means 5 min headways in the tunnel. 8 min headways at Baseline and Moodie mean 4 minute headways in the tunnel. Are you starting to see why interlining is becoming problematic?

And as I wrote in a post, just as you were writing this one I assume, 4 minute headways would be at half the capacity of the tunnel, and probably even less than half if the automated systems can push headway to every 90 seconds (which is quite likely). At that headway you could run 10 trains an hour from the T-Line and still have enough capacity to serve Barrhaven and Kanata with 14 trains an hour, each.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where do people get the idea that something like this would be free? Aside from the infrastructure needed to enable a connection, the operational complexity involved absolutely incurs costs.

Yes, a cost is incurred if it is built. But leaving the option open means just that. They probably don't even have to do anything. If Bayview station is kept in its same location, or just a bit further south, that leaves plenty of room to the north to build interline, a POW connections, if that is what is decided would work best in the future.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

More broadly, when interlining occurs elsewhere, in my experience, you have a much more even load between branches. This is not what we'd have at Bayview. Indeed, I'm not sure interlining would see Bayview actually served by the Trillium Line.

There is no reason Bayview wouldn't be served. Doing so would be rather simple.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What we left open is the possibility of a connection across the river. There's no specific requirement for the Trillium line to go across. And depending what happens in Gatineau, it may make more sense for their LRT to cross than the Trillium Line.

This is true. That might be the case. I have always stated that the proposition of using the POW bridge for LRT (be it Ottawa's or Gatineau's) is a questionable idea. I'm inclined to think it would be a waste to put transit connections across the river, at that location, but like interlining, the option should definitely be left open until it is properly explored.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Or it's a sign that money doesn't grown trees and the planners made the most of the resources they were allocated.

Or it is a sign that the city tried to find a way to expand the T-Line even though pressure from the satellite suburbs put it into second class status, and so many compromises were made that it became a garbage plan. Or it was design by a bunch of mapinistas that found a way to add a maximum amount of lines and dots to the cities transit map despite how it functioned on the ground.

Or it is everything I said, and what you said, and more. You could argue who's fault it was that the T-Line has became a rubbish plan, but in the end that doesn't matter. At this point it should be about figuring out what the options are going forward so that the T-Line actually has a real path towards modernization, and that money isn't being wasted on a line, and corridor, that will deliver sub-par service with a 20 year old design.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

If the automated system is able to achieve 90 second headways, which is possible after a several years of operation, and experience, the DT tunnel could reach capacity of 40 trains per hour, in each direction. If you have 12 trains an hour leaving from both Kanata and Barrhaven, this will give 5 minute frequencies from the suburbs up until Lincoln Fields. From Lincoln Fields to Bayview, you would have a 2.5 minute frequency. That still leaves up to 16 more train an hour that can be put through the DT tunnel. You could actually bump up the number of trains serving Kanata and Barrhaven to 14 per hour (a train every 4.3 minutes from the suburbs and one every 2.2 minutes from Lincoln Fields to Bayview), and have 10 trains an hour coming from the T-Line onto the C-Line, and still be just a few trains short of maximum capacity.

Allocating just 25% of the DT tunnel capacity to the T-Line would allow it to be become a much more valuable part of the network. Even if it had just 20% of the tunnel capacity it could still run 4 downtown to airport trips, and 4 downtown to Riverside trips per hour (and 6 per hour from Riverside if the T-Line used 25% of the DT tunnel capacity). This would mean that stations like South Keys would have direct to downtown service every 7.5 minutes. And if the line was busy enough that more frequent service was needed, then it could get creative. It could add additional trains starting in Riverside and either terminate at Bayview (avoiding the use of DT tunnel capacity), or, have trains carry on across the river into Gatineau (if that link actually proves to be useful). This way buses feeding into the T-Line in Riverside and the southern suburbs can be timed so that they, under ideal situations, drop them off 3-4 minutes before a direct to downtown train arrives. But, if they happen to miss it, at least then there is the option of grabbing a train to Bayview and transferring there, at least getting their trip underway instead of waiting another 15 minutes for a direct train (or they could opt to wait for that direct train).

As I stated a few posts ago, unless the C-Line is so well used and has such explosive growth that its ridership alone would push the DT tunnel to reach capacity in 15-20 years, then the T-Line should be able to capitalize on that valuable piece of infrastructure.

If I were going to make lemonade out of the lemons that are now the T-Line and the Southeast Transitway, I'd make a loop, like this, providing a downtown subway under Elgin rather than interlining.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Ru9X9VELZ57IWzF8-HhY0Tn_xjXI8NP&usp=sharing

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

If I were going to make lemonade out of the lemons that are now the T-Line and the Southeast Transitway, I'd make a loop, like this, providing a downtown subway under Elgin rather than interlining.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Ru9X9VELZ57IWzF8-HhY0Tn_xjXI8NP&usp=sharing

Nice idea, I'm not going to examine it too much, but passing under the Rideau Canal in the manner you've shown would be very technically challenging if not impossible.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Allocating just 25% of the DT tunnel capacity to the T-Line would allow it to be become a much more valuable part of the network. Even if it had just 20% of the tunnel capacity it could still run 4 downtown to airport trips, and 4 downtown to Riverside trips per hour (and 6 per hour from Riverside if the T-Line used 25% of the DT tunnel capacity). This would mean that stations like South Keys would have direct to downtown service every 7.5 minutes. And if the line was busy enough that more frequent service was needed, then it could get creative. It could add additional trains starting in Riverside and either terminate at Bayview (avoiding the use of DT tunnel capacity), or, have trains carry on across the river into Gatineau (if that link actually proves to be useful). This way buses feeding into the T-Line in Riverside and the southern suburbs can be timed so that they, under ideal situations, drop them off 3-4 minutes before a direct to downtown train arrives. But, if they happen to miss it, at least then there is the option of grabbing a train to Bayview and transferring there, at least getting their trip underway instead of waiting another 15 minutes for a direct train (or they could opt to wait for that direct train).

As I stated a few posts ago, unless the C-Line is so well used and has such explosive growth that its ridership alone would push the DT tunnel to reach capacity in 15-20 years, then the T-Line should be able to capitalize on that valuable piece of infrastructure.

In order to do that we”d have to equally electrify and automate the T-line, change the train sets and its stations to low floor. Gimme another billion or so. We can’t even afford to double track the line at this point. In the end there’s no difference to waiting for the odd T-line train at Rideau or or transferring at Bayview

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

If I were going to make lemonade out of the lemons that are now the T-Line and the Southeast Transitway, I'd make a loop, like this, providing a downtown subway under Elgin rather than interlining.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Ru9X9VELZ57IWzF8-HhY0Tn_xjXI8NP&usp=sharing

I think looping all the way back to the SE Transitway doesn't make a lot of sense (the cost of converting that section to LRT doesn't seem worth it given the low ridership at most of the stations). But a loop through Gatineau and back across the river to meet up with Rideau Station could make sense (this way there is access to the central part of Gatineau from both the east and the west). But I would question whether there is enough ridership to make it worth while (versus the number of Gatineau commuters crossing into Ottawa). That is why I don't think either agency should be rushing to push LRT across the river until an integrated plan is put together.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

In order to do that we”d have to equally electrify and automate the T-line, change the train sets and its stations to low floor. Gimme another billion or so. We can’t even afford to double track the line at this point. In the end there’s no difference to waiting for the odd T-line train at Rideau or or transferring at Bayview

The city cant afford it because the money is being used to push the C-Line into the satellite suburbs. The line from Moodie to Stittsville alone is going to be close to $2 billion. The city has "no money" for the T-Line because it has made the choice not to invest that much into the T-Line, right now, in favour of other parts of the city.

And that other parts of the city are getting multi-billion dollar investments first isn't even the problem. The fact the T-Line is going to be expanded but remain a single track system isn't even a problem. The problem is that the current plan will guarantee that it stays that way for decades to come. The T-Line has one long shutdown available. If it doesn't do everything necessary to ensure that it can be double tracked, and modernized, in the future without any further shutdowns, it wont be double tracked, or upgraded.

The T-Line can take 10 or 15 years to be modernized to the same standard as the C-Line. It could actually be well suited for much smaller scale expansion projects (just like the approach they took with the Transitway). But if they don't set the line up for that opportunity now, it will take decades before it gets another chance. This is why I think it would be better to do nothing with the T-Line, and take the time to develop a proper, long term plan, then spend money on the current, compromised, designed by committee, plan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

If the automated system is able to achieve 90 second headways, which is possible after a several years of operation, and experience,

You're acting like the downtown tunnel is not connected to the rest of the Confederation Line. It's not just 90s headways in the tunnel. We're talking 90s headways from the interline merge till Hurdman. That means turning a train around in 90s at the terminus. Regardless of the signalling and control system, as long as there's an operator onboard this is not realistic.

Moreover, no organization is going to voluntarily plan a service like this given the costs and risks involved when there's simply no demand driving. Bayview is not Yonge/Bloor where trains need to be pushed through every 90s to ensure the platform is cleared.

Personally, I doubt most operators would plan this kind of frequency without the addition platform screen doors.