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

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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.

And so the option is open. What's the debate here then?

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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.

Bullshit like this is making me wish they had put every penny into the Confederation Line and simply ignored the Trillium Line.

Transit is not built to give you "status". Where the hell do you guys come up with this nonsense? It's built to serve riders. And the Confederation Line had a ton more riders than the Trillium Line ever will. You could literally replace the Trillium Line with a transitway and still have plenty of room to grow ridership. The numbers on that corridor don't require rail.

The Trillium Line is getting the investment necessary to keep it functional and grow capacity to match demand. Given that it'll be flanked by the Confederation Line in the West (in due course) and the Southeast Transitway in the East, the need for substantial investment on par with the Confederation Line is absolutely questionable.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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.

Good news for you. The city isn't going to put a dime into Stage 3:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...-governments-to-fund-future-lrt-projects

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

The problem is that the current plan will guarantee that it stays that way for decades to come.

Because they clearly don't see demand necessitating more. Most of the city is going to be transferring to the Confederation Line in some way, directly from their bus. This is why there's no great pressure to invest in Trillium.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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.

Is there some rule that says they can't shutdown again? After they extend in Stage 2, the next logical step would be double tracking. I don't see why they can't shutdown for that.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

The T-Line can take 10 or 15 years to be modernized to the same standard as the C-Line.

Building the Trillium Line to the same standard as the Confederation Line when ridership doesn't warrant it would be a massive misuse of resources. Would probably also see federal and provincial confidence in the city's future transit plans go down.

[Ottawaresident]

There should be a law about all new passenger railways having screen doors.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Bullshit like this is making me wish they had put every penny into the Confederation Line and simply ignored the Trillium Line.

You are misreading his quote, he was just saying that the plan was changed such that the Trillium Line was relegated as a secondary (second-class) line. This was not a comment on social status implication of the line.

[Ottawaresident]

Well to me the T-Line is dead.

[Kitchissippi]

If the Trillium line was electrified and automated, you could probably run it at near 5 minute frequencies despite some single track sections, as the trains would be able to do it faster and safer. That would make interlining in the tunnel pointless — why wait for the odd train when you can take any train and transfer at Bayview quickly with minimal wait?

[Ottawaresident]

Why didn't those vision-less politicians implement double tracking when the T line opened? No money?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Why didn't those vision-less politicians implement double tracking when the T line opened? No money?

They used the track that was there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You are misreading his quote, he was just saying that the plan was changed such that the Trillium Line was relegated as a secondary (second-class) line. This was not a comment on social status implication of the line.

And that implies that users of the line are second class citizens, leading to this nonsensical complaint that different parts of the city are being given priority. It's bullshit. Planners are clearly aiming to convert the busiest corridors to rail to reduce bus use.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Bullshit like this is making me wish they had put every penny into the Confederation Line and simply ignored the Trillium Line.

Transit is not built to give you "status". Where the hell do you guys come up with this nonsense? It's built to serve riders. And the Confederation Line had a ton more riders than the Trillium Line ever will. You could literally replace the Trillium Line with a transitway and still have plenty of room to grow ridership. The numbers on that corridor don't require rail.

The Trillium Line is getting the investment necessary to keep it functional and grow capacity to match demand. Given that it'll be flanked by the Confederation Line in the West (in due course) and the Southeast Transitway in the East, the need for substantial investment on par with the Confederation Line is absolutely questionable.

Don't forget that the 2006 TMP planned for the T-Line to be double tracked for much of its length. It isn't that it has become less viable or valuable in that time. Priorities shifted. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Democratic cities can be messy at times.

No one is suggesting that the T-Line should see a multi-billion dollar investment right out of the gate. No one has even suggested that the C-Line should be scaled back in favour of it either. Nor are my comments bullshit, or about building transit for "status". The criticism of the T-Line is about the fact that it has become a stupid, garbage, waste of money plan, which has come as a result of a decade of the city and planners trying to find ways to expand it, with less and less money allocated to it due to the growing demands of the satellite suburbs to have LRT service extended to them asap. This isn't even a knock against the C-Line or the satellite suburbs. They wanted modern transit service. They have money and political clout and they are getting what they wanted. And it is a logical choice to start with parts of the Transitway that are at capacity, to ensure those lines have an opportunity to continue to grow. And none of that is controversial or attacking anyone. That's how the development of LRT went.

I will repeat that the problem with the T-Line plan is that it doesn't allow for future expansion. If it doesn't tackle all the projects that will require a line shutdown in this next phase, those projects will not get done for the decades to come because there is no chance they can have another long shut down on the line. And that means that there will be no further expansion for several decades since, as a single track line, its capacity will be limited. This isn't a question about spending tons more money on the line right now. The T-Line has the potential to develop an even larger transit user base in the south part of the city. But without a thoughtful plan that does not box it into irrelevance, there is no chance of that happening. That's it. Simple as that.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the Trillium line was electrified and automated, you could probably run it at near 5 minute frequencies despite some single track sections, as the trains would be able to do it faster and safer. That would make interlining in the tunnel pointless — why wait for the odd train when you can take any train and transfer at Bayview quickly with minimal wait?

The short answer to that is that this will leave many people with a two transfer ride. C-Line users will most likely have one transfer, when they take get off a bus at an LRT station. For the T-Line, many people will have that transfer, in addition to another transfer at Bayview. Same with downtown to the airport being two transfers as well. You can argue to what degree a two transfer trip degrades the desirability of the service, but there is no doubt it does affect the overall value of a line.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And that implies that users of the line are second class citizens, leading to this nonsensical complaint that different parts of the city are being given priority. It's bullshit. Planners are clearly aiming to convert the busiest corridors to rail to reduce bus use.

Yes. That conversion of existing, busy, Transitway lines to LRT is exactly what they are doing. And that was a choice the city made, in part based on the pressure that the citizens in those satellite suburbs exerted. The city could have started its LRT expansion with a downtown LRT tunnel (or surface rail) and upgraded Trillium, as it was originally going to do. There were many logical reasons to go that route as well. But it didn't, and took a different approach, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But at the same time, that does mean the T-Line is no longer a priority for large scale investments. The plan has been scaled back over the past decade, that is a fact. It will receive less than 1/10th of the overall LRT investment in the city from 2014 to 2025, that is a fact.

And there is nothing wrong with that, at all, so long as that when they start investing in the T-Line they don't build it into irrelevance before it has even had a chance to develop ridership, and communities around it. And yes, if the end result is that they receive a slapdash, rubbish plan that has no chance of being upgraded beyond what is being proposed for phase 2, then it would be fair to say they are being treated like second class citizens of the city.

[lrt's friend]

Let's put this into perspective. We are investing in the Confederation Line at more than 10x the rate of the Trillium Line. In long-run, ridership will not be 10x the rate of the Trillium Line.

If we invested properly and interline into the tunnel, the Confederation Line would have perhaps 4x the ridership of the Trillium Line. As it stands, the Trillium Line does not serve the communities it runs through properly.

If there was 50,000 ridership per day, who says that is not enough for electric LRT? For a route that would be much shorter than the Confederation Line. 50.000 may be equally effective given that less track is needed.

We are already pushing the limits of LRT technology as the Confederation Line will have the highest single line ridership of any LRT system in North America.

If Truenorth comments were true, then none of the LRT systems built in other North American cities should have been built including Calgary's C-Train, which has ridership spread onto two lines that are interlined through downtown. Every other city has made a mistake. Every other city should have just stuck with buses.

I presume that Gatineau should abandon its LRT plans as well because it can't reach 250,000 ridership per day.

So we build the Confederation Line east and west to the edge of the wilderness eventually. What about the rest of the city, that is not well served by that one route? We just forget them, and leave them on buses on increasingly congested streets?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Yes. That conversion of existing, busy, Transitway lines to LRT is exactly what they are doing. And that was a choice the city made, in part based on the pressure that the citizens in those satellite suburbs exerted. The city could have started its LRT expansion with a downtown LRT tunnel (or surface rail) and upgraded Trillium, as it was originally going to do. There were many logical reasons to go that route as well. But it didn't, and took a different approach, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But at the same time, that does mean the T-Line is no longer a priority for large scale investments. The plan has been scaled back over the past decade, that is a fact. It will receive less than 1/10th of the overall LRT investment in the city from 2014 to 2025, that is a fact.

And there is nothing wrong with that, at all, so long as that when they start investing in the T-Line they don't build it into irrelevance before it has even had a chance to develop ridership, and communities around it. And yes, if the end result is that they receive a slapdash, rubbish plan that has no chance of being upgraded beyond what is being proposed for phase 2, then it would be fair to say they are being treated like second class citizens of the city.

The fact of the matter is that development in the south has been curtailed by an inadequate transportation plan. Once the Trillium Line is extended beyond the Greenbelt, this will suddenly change. Development will move forward at a faster pace than in the past yet our long-term plans have a wall built into them.

Once the Trillium Line is no longer a student train, it will no longer be acceptable to shut it down for a year or two or three. So, this leads us to no upgrade path. This is why we will eventually need to look at an alternative, which I suggest is the Bank Street subway, which could run on the SE Transitway south of Billings Bridge and replace the two transfer plan to the airport with a direct train to downtown. But, even that will be a mess since the airport spur is not being designed to a low floor standard.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let's put this into perspective. We are investing in the Confederation Line at more than 10x the rate of the Trillium Line. In long-run, ridership will not be 10x the rate of the Trillium Line.

And that is an important perspective to remember. The further the lines are extended into the satellite suburbs, the smaller the return on investment is going to be as density drops.

It is also worth keeping in mind that the T-Line has always been different from the C-Line. Many sections of it bring rapid transit to new neighborhoods, and it is serving as a catalyst for new, urban and suburban, development. It isn't a line that needs to be fully built out at once, but continually expanded as ridership grows. It is a different approach to LRT, but being able to develop new rapid transit in the city is just as important, in the mid- to long-term, as converting the existing Transitway corridors into the C-Line is.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Once the Trillium Line is no longer a student train, it will no longer be acceptable to shut it down for a year or two or three. So, this leads us to no upgrade path. This is why we will eventually need to look at an alternative, which I suggest is the Bank Street subway, which could run the SE Transitway south of Billings Bridge and replace the two transfer plan to the airport with a direct train to downtown. But, even that will be a mess since the airport spur is not being designed to a low floor standard.

And that's exactly the problem. Because the current plan doesn't have enough foresight to allow for logical upgrading of the line after the planned shutdown, it creates a situation where the corridor isn't utilized anywhere near to the capacity it could be, meaning all kinds of silly, work around solutions start being developed. And there is no need for that. Yes transit is in a lot of ways complex. But in this case it isn't rocket science. Just make sure that the T-Line can be continually upgraded without any additional shut downs. Yes it means taking a year or two for a rethink and a new RFP. But that is a much, much better outcome than the current plan.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And that's exactly the problem. Because the current plan doesn't have enough foresight to allow for logical upgrading of the line after the planned shutdown, it creates a situation where the corridor isn't utilized anywhere near to the capacity it could be, meaning all kinds of silly, work around solutions start being developed. And there is no need for that. Yes transit is in a lot of ways complex. But in this case it isn't rocket science. Just make sure that the T-Line can be continually upgraded without any additional shut downs. Yes it means taking a year or two for a rethink and a new RFP. But that is a much, much better outcome than the current plan.

Which means to switch to Citadis trains now, rather than having incompatible technology on this line, which makes incompatibility permanent and extension to Gatineau or anywhere else highly unlikely.

I just hope that Gatineau has the foresight not to select incompatible trains. We know that FLIRT trains are not going to be running on Gatineau streets.

When cities plan multiple rail lines, they either interline on a common corridor or they build separate routes through the city centre. Toronto is an exception and has created the Bloor/Yonge mess with no easy solution. How many years is Toronto going to wait before they even get the shovel in the ground for the Relief Line? So we model after the bad Toronto example or worse. I cannot believe that we are agreeable with the disjointed plans from both Ottawa and Gatineau, designed to make it a pain in the neck to move around the city instead of a seamless rail network.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Which means to switch to Citadis trains now, rather than having incompatible technology on this line, which makes incompatibility permanent and extension to Gatineau or anywhere else highly unlikely.

I just hope that Gatineau has the foresight not to select incompatible trains. We know that FLIRT trains are not going to be running on Gatineau streets.

Converting the Trillium Line to use LRV's (specifically with the relatively low catenary wires) puts the city in a risky position given their freight obligations along the corridor.

Imagine if you have a line built for LRV's and CP rolls back in to town wanting to kick up some freight service using that clause they have in the purchase agreement with the City. What's the city to do, tear down the overhead wires? build a bypass along the entire thing? Can you imagine the costs?

I'm not saying that's like, or ever going to happen, but the City will never assume that kind of financial risk. It's already questionable that they went with the separate freight-bypass for the Ellwood grade separation.



Other than a strong desire to interline or street-run everything, there's really no reason to ever switch the rolling stock of the Trillium Line. From a transportation perspective they are functionally identical to an LRV (high seating capacity, low door count, similar in length etc).

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Which means to switch to Citadis trains now, rather than having incompatible technology on this line, which makes incompatibility permanent and extension to Gatineau or anywhere else highly unlikely.

I just hope that Gatineau has the foresight not to select incompatible trains. We know that FLIRT trains are not going to be running on Gatineau streets.

And those are two huge considerations going forward. If Ottawa buys any more DMUs, it has basically guaranteed the T-Line will remain an orphan. If Ottawa crosses the river, it needs to figure out if it will need its own right of way, or if it can share tracks with the Gatineau SLR, or if they should built a shared, grade segregated right of way, or if Ottawa trains even need to cross the river if STO provides inter-provincial LRT service.

The project leaves way too many critical questions unanswered.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And those are two huge considerations going forward. If Ottawa buys any more DMUs, it has basically guaranteed the T-Line will remain an orphan. If Ottawa crosses the river, it needs to figure out if it will need its own right of way, or if it can share tracks with the Gatineau SLR, or if they should built a shared, grade segregated right of way, or if Ottawa trains even need to cross the river if STO provides inter-provincial LRT service.

The project leaves way too many critical questions unanswered.

Alright alright, you guys can stop agreeing