Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Seattle has been using dual-mode transit buses in its bus tunnel since 1987. Diesel on street and electric trolley in the tunnel.

Here's a pic from 1990.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Seattle_Transit_Tunnel

Note that the tunnel in Seattle will be closed down and converted to rail only to coincide with the expansion of their LRT system.

[Truenorth00]

Did nobody here attend the public consultations a decade ago? They covered why the bus tunnels were the less practical option.

1) Cost. Some are assuming it's a little more. No. It's a lot more. They anticipated needing a four lane tunnel and platforms. For the capacity needed, this is what was required. And the magnitude and scope of construction was going to drive costs substantially higher.

2) Capacity. The downtown Transitway was already approaching the limit of BRT. Building a bus tunnel might have gotten them to 15 000 pphpd. But that would have come at a very high operational cost, moving passengers on buses at 50-75 pax at a time, on vehicles with half to a third of the service life of rail vehicles. And after all that, they'd still need another solution within a decade or two after the tunnel maxed out.

They knew what they were doing. The LRT was the right call for the traffic patterns that were there and the capacity required.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If they planned it right, they could have bought the new buses long before shovels were in the ground for the tunnel.

I'm curious how much you guys think hybrid and dual mode buses cost. What do you guys think the delta is on a typical diesel bus?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Transitway is about 30 years old.... Show me one bus that is that old in the fleet.

Buses last 10-15 years. Switching over several hundred buses in 6-7 years was not going to be some cheap or easy affair.

[lrt's friend]

The bus tunnel capacity was a non-issue. That is why the whole analysis discarding a bus tunnel was faulty. With a bus tunnel, we are not obligated to move every bus into the tunnel. This is exactly what Richard Eade was saying. We had the flexibility with a bus tunnel to continue to run buses also on the Albert/Slater corridor. That is not the case with rail, which does not offer the same flexibility. With a rail tunnel, all the traffic has to go through the tunnel. Fortunately, rail does offer more overall capacity because trains can be run in tandem, and as much longer units.

Cost is also a faulty argument, because the enormous capital cost of rail conversion comes from the same taxpayer as operating costs. So, buses may cost more to operate, but in the case of rail, we need to pay for the capital costs just as much.

There is also a cost of maintaining trains, rails, signalling and electrical infrastructure. Trains may last longer, but their is the cost of refurbishment to make them last that long. The reason whey trains are refurbished while buses are not, is because train replacement is so expensive.

The whole argument about cost points back to why Ottawa's streetcars were removed in 1959. That was a cost decision. It cost more to refurbish or replace streetcars, plus refurbish the rail and electrical infrastructure. It was cheaper to use buses instead. And today, we have to maintain much more sophisticated signalling systems that did not exist in 1959.

I am very happy to see rail for a variety of reasons but some reasons are not as valid as they appear on the surface.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Cost is also a faulty argument, because the enormous capital cost of rail conversion comes from the same taxpayer as operating costs. So, buses may cost more to operate, but in the case of rail, we need to pay for the capital costs just as much.

But in the long run, you save more by running rail than you do buses. Especially when you consider that a bus tunnel wouldn't be a good long term solution. Isn't it the main reason that the Trillium Line is being extended to a currently mostly non-existent suburb? Yes, it is.

There is also a cost of maintaining trains, rails, signalling and electrical infrastructure. Trains may last longer, but their is the cost of refurbishment to make them last that long. The reason whey trains are refurbished while buses are not, is because train replacement is so expensive.

Not sure why you think buses don't get refurbished. They do. In fact, OC Transpo just finished refurbishing 62 of their New Flyer D40i's and is now refurbishing some of their D60LF's.

Both buses and trains get refurbished (at least) once in their lifetime, but trains are usually only rebuilt after 15 years while buses are retired after 15 years. Trains are significantly longer lasting.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The bus tunnel capacity was a non-issue. That is why the whole analysis discarding a bus tunnel was faulty. With a bus tunnel, we are not obligated to move every bus into the tunnel. This is exactly what Richard Eade was saying. We had the flexibility with a bus tunnel to continue to run buses also on the Albert/Slater corridor. That is not the case with rail, which does not offer the same flexibility. With a rail tunnel, all the traffic has to go through the tunnel. Fortunately, rail does offer more overall capacity because trains can be run in tandem, and as much longer units.

Huh? With rail running through a tunnel we still have the option of running buses on Albert and Slater, which will probably be the contingency case if the LRT is down. Don't see your point at all.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Huh? With rail running through a tunnel we still have the option of running buses on Albert and Slater, which will probably be the contingency case if the LRT is down. Don't see your point at all.

The main reason why a bus tunnel was dismissed was because it did not give a whole lot more capacity than the Albert/Slater corridor. True on its own.

However, bus tunnel + Albert/Slater corridor gives you more than double the capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor alone.

The contingency rail plan on Albert/Slater is less than when the Transitway was fully operational. There is no efficient access for buses into downtown as we have seen in the last few years. We won't have the buses nor the drivers in the future either. That's why they said that the contingency plan will require people to Uber or walk. Of course, Uber won't have the capacity either and they will likely ding people through the teeth with surge pricing when rail goes down.

Bus tunnel + Albert/Slater would have given us ample capacity for decades. That was the bottleneck with the old system.

They chose rail instead, which also addressed the problem, but we are spending a fortune on rail conversion away from the bottleneck zone.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The main reason why a bus tunnel was dismissed was because it did not give a whole lot more capacity than the Albert/Slater corridor. True on its own.

However, bus tunnel + Albert/Slater corridor gives you more than double the capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor alone. .

Double the Transitway capacity, double the number of drivers and buses, double the equipment and operating cost, etc. OC Transpo's operating budget is already way over half a billion a year, where would it have ended up? These things were all thoroughly studied and presented in the business case.

There's nothing stopping OC Transpo from supplementing LRT capacity with regular crosstown routes, it's just not cost effective at the moment. With transit priority measures on some arterials and maybe twinning the Rideau river bridge we could easily have decent crosstown bus service back on Slater and Albert. LRT in a tunnel with surface buses would still be better than a bus tunnel plus surface buses.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Huh? With rail running through a tunnel we still have the option of running buses on Albert and Slater, which will probably be the contingency case if the LRT is down. Don't see your point at all.

The main reason why a bus tunnel was dismissed was because it did not give a whole lot more capacity than the Albert/Slater corridor. True on its own.

However, bus tunnel + Albert/Slater corridor gives you more than double the capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor alone.

The contingency rail plan on Albert/Slater is less than when the Transitway was fully operational. There is no efficient access for buses into downtown as we have seen in the last few years. We won't have the buses nor the drivers in the future either. That's why they said that the contingency plan will require people to Uber or walk. Of course, Uber won't have the capacity either and they will likely ding people through the teeth with surge pricing when rail goes down.

Bus tunnel + Albert/Slater would have given us ample capacity for decades. That was the bottleneck with the old system.

They chose rail instead, which also addressed the problem, but we are spending a fortune on rail conversion away from the bottleneck zone.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The main reason why a bus tunnel was dismissed was because it did not give a whole lot more capacity than the Albert/Slater corridor. True on its own.

However, bus tunnel + Albert/Slater corridor gives you more than double the capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor alone.

The contingency rail plan on Albert/Slater is less than when the Transitway was fully operational. There is no efficient access for buses into downtown as we have seen in the last few years. We won't have the buses nor the drivers in the future either. That's why they said that the contingency plan will require people to Uber or walk. Of course, Uber won't have the capacity either and they will likely ding people through the teeth with surge pricing when rail goes down.

Bus tunnel + Albert/Slater would have given us ample capacity for decades. That was the bottleneck with the old system.

They chose rail instead, which also addressed the problem, but we are spending a fortune on rail conversion away from the bottleneck zone.

If what you said is true then they would have done that with the stlaurant bus tunnel. The fact is the city only has so much money to work with and they have to get as much bang for the buck as possible. If you really want to point fingers then point it at the feds who knew for decades that the downtown core needed a tunnel and chose to do nothing until now. A lot of Ottawa's transit problems were caused by the federal government.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Double the Transitway capacity, double the number of drivers and buses, double the equipment and operating cost, etc. OC Transpo's operating budget is already way over half a billion a year, where would it have ended up? These things were all thoroughly studied and presented in the business case.

This. Not only would the operating costs have been through the rough is all they did was increase bus capacity, but the challenges of finding enough labour to operate all the buses would have been a nightmare. Operating costs are a critical component of any plan (or at least they should be). I know some will argue that transit is a social service and that things like cost recovery should not matter, and there is some truth to that. But systems can't just hemorrhage money. The long term cost savings of having gone with LRT versus a bus tunnel will make a big difference in the long term health and success of Ottawa's transit network.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

If what you said is true then they would have done that with the stlaurant bus tunnel. The fact is the city only has so much money to work with and they have to get as much bang for the buck as possible. If you really want to point fingers then point it at the feds who knew for decades that the downtown core needed a tunnel and chose to do nothing until now. A lot of Ottawa's transit problems were caused by the federal government.

I am curious as to what problems with Ottawa's transit system you see having been caused by the federal government?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The bus tunnel capacity was a non-issue. That is why the whole analysis discarding a bus tunnel was faulty.

Why didn’t you attend the public consultation and tell the planners with a full audience behind you that they are morons and their education and experience counts for squat? I’m sure it would have gone down well. Just yell, “Fake New!” when they present facts you don’t like.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

With a bus tunnel, we are not obligated to move every bus into the tunnel. This is exactly what Richard Eade was saying.

If either of you had actually attended those consultations, you’d note that they talk about this too. There was a risk of achieving saturation again on Albert/Slater within the life of that tunnel. And all this would have happened as a growing city didn’t have spare road capacity in the downtown core.

I don’t remember all their points. It was a decade ago. But they were certainly detailed and broad in their analysis and logic. And answered every question that came their way. They were clear that there was no way out of the transit jam without rail.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Cost is also a faulty argument, because the enormous capital cost of rail conversion comes from the same taxpayer as operating costs. So, buses may cost more to operate, but in the case of rail, we need to pay for the capital costs just as much.

“It’s the same taxpayer.” This sounds like a grade 9 civics essay line. In reality, the operating cost is heavily borne by the city while the capital costs are heavily borne by the other two levels of government. Any city that doesn’t maximize capital expansion that is > 60% by the feds and province are fools. From the city’s perspective, the payback in operational savings on their capital contribution will easily happen inside two decades. Probably closer to decade and a half.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is also a cost of maintaining trains, rails, signalling and electrical infrastructure. Trains may last longer, but their is the cost of refurbishment to make them last that long. The reason whey trains are refurbished while buses are not, is because train replacement is so expensive.

It’s not just that replacement is expensive. It’s just refurbishment can achieve so much on a rail vehicle. Refurbishing a bus may get you another 5-7 years of useful economic life. Refurbishing a train easily gets another 10-15 years. This may change with electric buses. But with diesel buses, technological change was sufficient that beyond 15 years, the economic case for a second refurbishment was usually poor.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The whole argument about cost points back to why Ottawa's streetcars were removed in 1959. That was a cost decision. It cost more to refurbish or replace streetcars, plus refurbish the rail and electrical infrastructure. It was cheaper to use buses instead. And today, we have to maintain much more sophisticated signalling systems that did not exist in 1959.

Diesel was dirt cheap in 1959. As was steel to make buses. More to the point, buses can replace streetcars. They can’t easily replace a metro line, which is what is being built here.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am very happy to see rail for a variety of reasons but some reasons are not as valid as they appear on the surface.

More like you think the only rail corridor built should be the one going south and you’d happily throw the rest of the city under the literal and proverbial bus to get that. I can’t believe it’s gotten to the point that you’re trying to justify a bus tunnel for a corridor with more than 10 000 pphpd at peak. Absolutely anything to get a train to your hood I guess.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The main reason why a bus tunnel was dismissed was because it did not give a whole lot more capacity than the Albert/Slater corridor. True on its own.

However, bus tunnel + Albert/Slater corridor gives you more than double the capacity of the Albert/Slater corridor alone.

The contingency rail plan on Albert/Slater is less than when the Transitway was fully operational. There is no efficient access for buses into downtown as we have seen in the last few years. We won't have the buses nor the drivers in the future either. That's why they said that the contingency plan will require people to Uber or walk. Of course, Uber won't have the capacity either and they will likely ding people through the teeth with surge pricing when rail goes down.

Bus tunnel + Albert/Slater would have given us ample capacity for decades. That was the bottleneck with the old system.

They chose rail instead, which also addressed the problem, but we are spending a fortune on rail conversion away from the bottleneck zone.

The thing is, a bus tunnel would have had a similar capacity to the rest of the Transitway, so if the tunnel was at capacity, so would the Transitway. As a result, buses on Albert and Slater would have had to have used city streets to get downtown. Fine for local routes, which are providing service to those streets anyway, but there are only so many of those (not enough to get anywhere near the capacity of Albert and Slater), so the overall capacity would still be limited by the capacity of the Transitway and tunnel.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, a bus tunnel would have had a similar capacity to the rest of the Transitway, so if the tunnel was at capacity, so would the Transitway. As a result, buses on Albert and Slater would have had to have used city streets to get downtown. Fine for local routes, which are providing service to those streets anyway, but there are only so many of those (not enough to get anywhere near the capacity of Albert and Slater), so the overall capacity would still be limited by the capacity of the Transitway and tunnel.

It’s also a terrible plan for the city. The downtown core would be choking on buses within a decade or two, on the surface and below the surface.

Moving 10 000 pphpd with buses is virtually never done anywhere but third world countries where crush load is far more acceptable and labour to operate and maintain those buses is far cheaper. It’s a ridiculous suggestion for Ottawa.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Diesel was dirt cheap in 1959. As was steel to make buses. More to the point, buses can replace streetcars. They can’t easily replace a metro line, which is what is being built here.

Exactly! AFAIK, Ottawa didn't run multiple car trains on its streetcar lines, so buses had a similar capacity to the streetcars they replaced.

With the Confederation Line, each train (with one driver) will probably replace an average of 8 buses with 8 drivers (or more if 40' used). So that is a reduction of 7 drivers for every train. With 15 trains in operation, that is a reduction of 105 drivers. Assuming each driver costs $100,000 a year in salary and benefits (a guess on my part, and probably a low ball estimate), That is over $10 million per year in savings in employment costs alone (ignoring all other savings and savings resulting from growth).

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Exactly! AFAIK, Ottawa didn't run multiple car trains on its streetcar lines, so buses had a similar capacity to the streetcars they replaced.

With the Confederation Line, each train (with one driver) will probably replace an average of 8 buses with 8 drivers (or more if 40' used). So that is a reduction of 7 drivers for every train. With 15 trains in operation, that is a reduction of 105 drivers. Assuming each driver costs $100,000 a year in salary and benefits (a guess on my part, and probably a low ball estimate), That is over $10 million per year in savings in employment costs alone (ignoring all other savings and savings resulting from growth).

Ottawa had streetcars?

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Ottawa had streetcars?

Until the 1950s when all the streetcar routes were replaced by buses.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Ottawa had streetcars?

Have you heard of Google?