Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Gat-Train]

I was trainspotting at UOttawa yesterday. Here are the results.
17:00 — 18:10
Westbound: 16
Eastbound: 14

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

We could have built a tunnel 30 years ago, and started using hybrid electric buses. They could even be hybrid, running on diesel above ground, and using a catenary in the tunnel. Or we could have gone with heavy rail (a better option imo). Hindsight is 20/20, and hopefully our city planners and city planners elsewhere can learn from our mistakes. But for now, it is what it is.

The city planners of Ottawa learning a lesson? I don't think that's possible.

[613Steve]

Is there a full video of the transit commission the other day?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by 613Steve

Is there a full video of the transit commission the other day?

Audio only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4b5CkGNfgc

PDF available on O-Train fans.

https://www.otrainfans.ca/blogs/ready-for-rail-operational-readiness-march-20-2019

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

Had we gone with the current tunnel but instead kept to the buses, this would all be over and done with. We'd have saved countless millions. Commuters, when it comes to it, only want to get from A to B. The mode of transportation is secondary, if even that.

Except the "current tunnel" could never handle bus traffic, and the cost of building a tunnel to bus-traffic code would likely have eaten up even more cash than a rail tunnel.

[J.OT13]

Listening to Wednesday's presentation. Around 23:30, it's the first time I remember hearing busiest LINE in North America.

[corynv]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Listening to Wednesday's presentation. Around 23:30, it's the first time I remember hearing busiest LINE in North America.

It's been mentioned a few times, though in a small way.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except the "current tunnel" could never handle bus traffic, and the cost of building a tunnel to bus-traffic code would likely have eaten up even more cash than a rail tunnel.

Exactly that's why they never did that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Just came home from a week in Ireland.
Dublin has at grade LRT that is part of the streetscape. No protection for people and at grade road crossings all over the place. Seems that everyone there can handle interacting with trains in the urban area.

In Ottawa, people don't understand the concept of cross walks and priority. They just j-walk anywhere, anytime regardless of oncoming traffic. Adding trains to the mix of rogue traffic would make things worse.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

My first thought when I heard they were testing 20 vehicles at a time, was to wonder whether they've done any modeling on whether (depending on how people and buses bunch or flow) there might be performance advantages to running something like 10 double and 10 singles at a higher frequency, vs 15 doubles. And if they want to keep an option like that in their pockets for certain circumstances. I realize they'd have 33% higher staff costs.

The electronic boards would need to tell people what type of train is coming and people would then need to head to the correct end of the platform. We'll already have two/three types of trains along Trillium, we probably shouldn't add the same kind of confusion to Confederation.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except the "current tunnel" could never handle bus traffic, and the cost of building a tunnel to bus-traffic code would likely have eaten up even more cash than a rail tunnel.

OK, a bus tunnel would have likely cost more, but the over-all cost might have been considerably less.

Let’s actually think about some of the thinks that have been said against a bus tunnel, instead of jumping to a conclusion:

A tunnel for buses would have needed to be wider, since OC Transpo would have insisted on passing at stations. However, bus platforms could have been staggered; the west-bound and east-bound platforms don’t need to be across from each other. Remember, buses can make relatively small-radius turns to adjust their path quickly. The east-bound station could consist of a single west-bound bus lane, two east-bound bus lanes (one for stopping in and one for passing), and the platform. The west-bound platform, further along the tunnel would have a similar, but opposite, configuration. Thus, the total width would be three bus lanes and a platform – instead of two train ‘lanes’ and two platforms. Yes, the tunnel would have been wide for a longer length, but it still would have had no problem fitting within the city’s Rights of Way under Queen and Rideau. Ramps can be much steeper for buses, which might have allowed for a shorted tunnel length.

The tunnel ventilation system would have had to be much more expensive. Perhaps so, but the requirements for the ventilation system are already a lot higher than most people realize. Even with an electric train, the ventilation system must be able to handle any possible smoke and chemicals within the tunnel. Thus, there are already huge ventilation shafts and fans which are designed to keep fumes away from the stations. It might simply be a case of running them at a slow speed all the time. There is also the option of running buses with 100% electric propulsion through the short tunnel.

A bus tunnel would simply move the bus lines from the surface to underground. I don’t believe that there was ever a plan to completely strip the surface of buses. Cities need buses on the surface; even when those cities have a well-developed underground transit network. Of the approximately 200 buses per hour (during the peak periods) running through the core, probably only about 70% would have been moved underground. At 140 buses per hour, I believe that the underground station would have run relatively smoothly.

A bus tunnel would have cost a lot more. I expect that this is true, but, remember, the cost of the LRT system is $2.1B for Stage 1 + $4.6B for Stage 2 + $??B for Stage 3. This is because the entire line needs to be completely converted before it is useful. The LRT tunnel itself came in about $650M and the rest of the BILLIONS of dollars are REQUIRED to convert the Transitway to rail. If a bus tunnel had been built, then the remaining Transitway could have been used. There is no need to convert the rest of the Transitway to a Transitway. So, even if the bus tunnel cost, say, $1B, that would be the total of what was REQUIRED for the line to be functional. Of course, there could still have been a lot of upgrades to the existing Transitway and the completion of missing links, but the total cost would likely only have been a portion of what it is costing to convert to a different technology.

People like to ride trains more than they like buses. Well, if a person is given the choice between taking a bus to transfer to a train to get to work verses taking a single bus directly to work, with most of the trip on a dedicated Transitway, they might opt for the bus. The speed of the trip might actually be faster on the single-seat bus ride. And, if the bus tunnel works as well as I believe it should, the buses will be reliable enough for people to schedule when they leave work to catch ‘their’ bus home.

So, there is some thought added to the knee-jerk statements that people make about a bus tunnel. Yes, it would likely have cost more FOR THE TUNNEL, but the over-all system cost would likely have been much lower. Also, the buses could have maintained the single-seat ride that commuters have gotten used to.

Of course, those thoughts only take into account the CAPITAL cost of the system; the operating costs are undoubtedly higher with buses.

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

OK, a bus tunnel would have likely cost more, but the over-all cost might have been considerably less.

Let’s actually think about some of the thinks that have been said against a bus tunnel, instead of jumping to a conclusion:

A tunnel for buses would have needed to be wider, since OC Transpo would have insisted on passing at stations. However, bus platforms could have been staggered; the west-bound and east-bound platforms don’t need to be across from each other. Remember, buses can make relatively small-radius turns to adjust their path quickly. The east-bound station could consist of a single west-bound bus lane, two east-bound bus lanes (one for stopping in and one for passing), and the platform. The west-bound platform, further along the tunnel would have a similar, but opposite, configuration. Thus, the total width would be three bus lanes and a platform – instead of two train ‘lanes’ and two platforms. Yes, the tunnel would have been wide for a longer length, but it still would have had no problem fitting within the city’s Rights of Way under Queen and Rideau. Ramps can be much steeper for buses, which might have allowed for a shorted tunnel length.

The tunnel ventilation system would have had to be much more expensive. Perhaps so, but the requirements for the ventilation system are already a lot higher than most people realize. Even with an electric train, the ventilation system must be able to handle any possible smoke and chemicals within the tunnel. Thus, there are already huge ventilation shafts and fans which are designed to keep fumes away from the stations. It might simply be a case of running them at a slow speed all the time. There is also the option of running buses with 100% electric propulsion through the short tunnel.

A bus tunnel would simply move the bus lines from the surface to underground. I don’t believe that there was ever a plan to completely strip the surface of buses. Cities need buses on the surface; even when those cities have a well-developed underground transit network. Of the approximately 200 buses per hour (during the peak periods) running through the core, probably only about 70% would have been moved underground. At 140 buses per hour, I believe that the underground station would have run relatively smoothly.

A bus tunnel would have cost a lot more. I expect that this is true, but, remember, the cost of the LRT system is $2.1B for Stage 1 + $4.6B for Stage 2 + $??B for Stage 3. This is because the entire line needs to be completely converted before it is useful. The LRT tunnel itself came in about $650M and the rest of the BILLIONS of dollars are REQUIRED to convert the Transitway to rail. If a bus tunnel had been built, then the remaining Transitway could have been used. There is no need to convert the rest of the Transitway to a Transitway. So, even if the bus tunnel cost, say, $1B, that would be the total of what was REQUIRED for the line to be functional. Of course, there could still have been a lot of upgrades to the existing Transitway and the completion of missing links, but the total cost would likely only have been a portion of what it is costing to convert to a different technology.

People like to ride trains more than they like buses. Well, if a person is given the choice between taking a bus to transfer to a train to get to work verses taking a single bus directly to work, with most of the trip on a dedicated Transitway, they might opt for the bus. The speed of the trip might actually be faster on the single-seat bus ride. And, if the bus tunnel works as well as I believe it should, the buses will be reliable enough for people to schedule when they leave work to catch ‘their’ bus home.

So, there is some thought added to the knee-jerk statements that people make about a bus tunnel. Yes, it would likely have cost more FOR THE TUNNEL, but the over-all system cost would likely have been much lower. Also, the buses could have maintained the single-seat ride that commuters have gotten used to.

Of course, those thoughts only take into account the CAPITAL cost of the system; the operating costs are undoubtedly higher with buses.

Eh, What?

[Gat-Train]

Am I the only one that thinks those doors to the LRT stations that don't have roofs look completely ridiculous? I suppose those were value-engineered, but IMO a black or red metal gate would look way nicer and have the same effect.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

OK, a bus tunnel would have likely cost more, but the over-all cost might have been considerably less.

Let’s actually think about some of the thinks that have been said against a bus tunnel, instead of jumping to a conclusion:

A tunnel for buses would have needed to be wider, since OC Transpo would have insisted on passing at stations. However, bus platforms could have been staggered; the west-bound and east-bound platforms don’t need to be across from each other. Remember, buses can make relatively small-radius turns to adjust their path quickly. The east-bound station could consist of a single west-bound bus lane, two east-bound bus lanes (one for stopping in and one for passing), and the platform. The west-bound platform, further along the tunnel would have a similar, but opposite, configuration. Thus, the total width would be three bus lanes and a platform – instead of two train ‘lanes’ and two platforms. Yes, the tunnel would have been wide for a longer length, but it still would have had no problem fitting within the city’s Rights of Way under Queen and Rideau. Ramps can be much steeper for buses, which might have allowed for a shorted tunnel length.

The tunnel ventilation system would have had to be much more expensive. Perhaps so, but the requirements for the ventilation system are already a lot higher than most people realize. Even with an electric train, the ventilation system must be able to handle any possible smoke and chemicals within the tunnel. Thus, there are already huge ventilation shafts and fans which are designed to keep fumes away from the stations. It might simply be a case of running them at a slow speed all the time. There is also the option of running buses with 100% electric propulsion through the short tunnel.

A bus tunnel would simply move the bus lines from the surface to underground. I don’t believe that there was ever a plan to completely strip the surface of buses. Cities need buses on the surface; even when those cities have a well-developed underground transit network. Of the approximately 200 buses per hour (during the peak periods) running through the core, probably only about 70% would have been moved underground. At 140 buses per hour, I believe that the underground station would have run relatively smoothly.

A bus tunnel would have cost a lot more. I expect that this is true, but, remember, the cost of the LRT system is $2.1B for Stage 1 + $4.6B for Stage 2 + $??B for Stage 3. This is because the entire line needs to be completely converted before it is useful. The LRT tunnel itself came in about $650M and the rest of the BILLIONS of dollars are REQUIRED to convert the Transitway to rail. If a bus tunnel had been built, then the remaining Transitway could have been used. There is no need to convert the rest of the Transitway to a Transitway. So, even if the bus tunnel cost, say, $1B, that would be the total of what was REQUIRED for the line to be functional. Of course, there could still have been a lot of upgrades to the existing Transitway and the completion of missing links, but the total cost would likely only have been a portion of what it is costing to convert to a different technology.

People like to ride trains more than they like buses. Well, if a person is given the choice between taking a bus to transfer to a train to get to work verses taking a single bus directly to work, with most of the trip on a dedicated Transitway, they might opt for the bus. The speed of the trip might actually be faster on the single-seat bus ride. And, if the bus tunnel works as well as I believe it should, the buses will be reliable enough for people to schedule when they leave work to catch ‘their’ bus home.

So, there is some thought added to the knee-jerk statements that people make about a bus tunnel. Yes, it would likely have cost more FOR THE TUNNEL, but the over-all system cost would likely have been much lower. Also, the buses could have maintained the single-seat ride that commuters have gotten used to.

Of course, those thoughts only take into account the CAPITAL cost of the system; the operating costs are undoubtedly higher with buses.

I said this more or less a few years ago when I suggested that we would have got more bang for our buck if we had built Andy Haydon's bus tunnel, so long as it was designed for conversion to rail. Some commented on my nickname, yet my whole thinking is not about rail versus buses, but whatever makes sense as far as delivering better transit service regardless of the mode.

Many have talked about the operational savings but we are now learning that the city's portion of the capital cost plus interest has to be repaid. Will we ever recover an amount in the billions from operational savings? Also, the very existence of a bus tunnel would have generated some operational savings, although not to the same level as rail.

I also recognized that a bus tunnel's capacity was not the issue as Richard pointed out that the surface route was also available. We would have more than doubled the capacity of the Albert/Slater surface route because the Albert/Slater corridor was still available. This would have provided ample capacity for decades.

We cannot obviously revisit this decision and we have no alternative to continue building rail city-wide, but it does point out that one choice was dismissed too quickly.

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Am I the only one that thinks those doors to the LRT stations that don't have roofs look completely ridiculous? I suppose those were value-engineered, but IMO a black or red metal gate would look way nicer and have the same effect.

Do you have a rendering or photo or something?

[Gat-Train]

Couldn't find station pictures, but here's an old rendering of a train, which looks way better than what we got IMO

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In Ottawa, people don't understand the concept of cross walks and priority. They just j-walk anywhere, anytime regardless of oncoming traffic. Adding trains to the mix of rogue traffic would make things worse.

You actually think that jaywalking and pedestrian indiscipline is especially unique to Ottawa?

Ottawa's actually a pretty obedient place by global standards.

[Acajack]

I do think it's really cool that Ottawa is getting a light metro, but lump me in with those who think the city probably should have given the downtown bus tunnel a shot.

I seriously doubt that when all is said and done it would have been cost-prohibitive compared to the total cost of the Confederation Line, and even if it was comparable in terms of costs as others have said it would still have had the potential to provide tangible benefits to a greater share of the city's population, sooner.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I said this more or less a few years ago when I suggested that we would have got more bang for our buck if we had built Andy Haydon's bus tunnel, so long as it was designed for conversion to rail. Some commented on my nickname, yet my whole thinking is not about rail versus buses, but whatever makes sense as far as delivering better transit service regardless of the mode.

Many have talked about the operational savings but we are now learning that the city's portion of the capital cost plus interest has to be repaid. Will we ever recover an amount in the billions from operational savings? Also, the very existence of a bus tunnel would have generated some operational savings, although not to the same level as rail.

I also recognized that a bus tunnel's capacity was not the issue as Richard pointed out that the surface route was also available. We would have more than doubled the capacity of the Albert/Slater surface route because the Albert/Slater corridor was still available. This would have provided ample capacity for decades.

We cannot obviously revisit this decision and we have no alternative to continue building rail city-wide, but it does point out that one choice was dismissed too quickly.

It had to be dismissed because there was no funding for a bus tunnel. If the city had the money then it would have been done.

[Kitchissippi]

Practically everything of the Transitway had to be ripped up and rebuilt for the LRT. What's to say that a bus tunnel would have been that cheap and easy to convert to rail?