Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Hindsight is 20/20.

They still wanted to run the Confederation Line at-grade in some sections all the way up to the 2013 TMP.

I remember attending some consultations a decade ago where a Kinki Sharyo rep made the point that Ottawa was perfect for a medium capacity small metro.

There was so much fixation though on having a mixed system with street running.

Had we been clear on full segregation everywhere, we could have enclosed stations with platform screen doors and possibly fully automated operation.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I remember attending some consultations a decade ago where a Kinki Sharyo rep made the point that Ottawa was perfect for a medium capacity small metro.

There was so much fixation though on having a mixed system with street running.

Had we been clear on full segregation everywhere, we could have enclosed stations with platform screen doors and possibly fully automated operation.

I agree. The project would have been that much better had we built a system closer to the Vancouver Skytrain or Montreal REM.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Radster

People love to complain, and as sad as it is, this type of behaviour is what most often makes the news. Would be nice if the media instead focused on positive stories and positive feedback about the Confederation Line once it opens. I am quite sure that most of the transit users riding the C Line will have only praise once it is open to the public. Kind of like with the Rapibus, there was tons of media coverage focusing on the bad stories, how people's commutes will require more transfers, how the commutes will now take 25-50% longer, etc. Yet the sentiment among Rapibus users once the system opened was overwhelmingly positive, and still is to this day. But that kind of stuff is not news worthy. Quite shameful actually. This is why I am not a fan of mainstream media and always take what I read with a grain of salt.

Hold on. It was the complainers who made Rapibus the success that it is today. They forced improvements on STO. The complainers made very valid contributions. We should expect the same with the Confederation Line. If certain trips take way too long, those voices will force OC to fix things. As everbody knows, this is the biggest change in Ottawa transit history. The planners will not get it 100% correct. It is the public who need to hold the planners to account to make sure we get the maximum benefit from our $2.1B investment.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree. The project would have been that much better had we built a system closer to the Vancouver Skytrain or Montreal REM.

At how much additional cost?

[corynv]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At how much additional cost?

whatever the cost of fully enclosing the system is. Since the system we have is fully capable of running autonomously already.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At how much additional cost?

Possibly none. It would have probably cost more to build but it would have been cheaper to build. If we looked at cost as capital + 30 years operation instead of just capital it may very well have come out cheaper to build light metro. REM is a light metro for this exact reason.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At how much additional cost?

Not actually sure it would have cost more. Especially if looking lifecycle costs.

[OCCheetos]

I mean, all that extra concrete that would be needed to pour the raised platforms would cost "something", right?

[Aroundtheworld]

Can someone explain to me why the Airport Line will require two transfers instead of one? What was the thinking that went into this?

In Vancouver, we have a spur to the airport but it's seamless. I can get Downtown without any transfers.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Can someone explain to me why the Airport Line will require two transfers instead of one? What was the thinking that went into this?

In Vancouver, we have a spur to the airport but it's seamless. I can get Downtown without any transfers.

Essentially 2 reasons:
1. The trillium line wasn't built to inter-line with the Confederation Line to downtown for various reasons (no spot to short-turn until Hurdman, would require electrification to run in the tunnel)
2. The "trunk" of the Trillium Line is single track, which limits frequencies and makes it difficult to run Airport trains to Bayview.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

This just proves that Ottawa was smarter in their choice of a fully grade-separated system and that at grade LRT is always a very bad idea.

Always, no. But not ideal as the spine of your big-urban transit system, if that system is a vertebrate (or even just a chordate)

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Can someone explain to me why the Airport Line will require two transfers instead of one? What was the thinking that went into this?

In Vancouver, we have a spur to the airport but it's seamless. I can get Downtown without any transfers.

Because the airport couldn't stand the fact the train was going to go right past the airport without a station, and the idea of bus-to-train wasn't appealing, and of course the city didn't want to "inconvenience" further south riders by jogging the line into the airport lands, though apparently the single track limiting frequency and the forced transfer at Bayview are not inconveniences in the city's mind.

The rail shuttle is pretty pointless (though works for me because I can make it to the airport without a transfer from where I live), but at least it can be rectified in the future by double tracking north of South Keys, allowing a similar branching service to what the Canada line does.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At how much additional cost?

Depends if you go with the Skytrain model (fully automated light-metro) or REM model (fully automated light-metro with enclosed stations and platform screen doors).

Although higher platforms, enclosed or mostly enclosed stations, platform screen doors, or at least build with the idea of installing them eventually, costs could have been more however, other aspects like shorter platforms (no driver cabs or gap between two cars, flat floor giving more interior space and configuration options), shorter trains, no drivers required and overall lower operation and maintenance costs could have compensated.

The only wild card is low-floor LRT's capabilities in tight-curves and steep grades which might have made the biggest difference engineering and construction wise.

[Corvulpes]

a

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Corvulpes

They're not that much different in temperature from above ground. I don't really know the reasoning. Some have hypothesized that they are all coincidentally busier stations. But who knows.

So you are saying that when it is -50 with wind chill outside, the underground stations will also have a wind chill of -50?

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Corvulpes

They're not that much different in temperature from above ground. I don't really know the reasoning. Some have hypothesized that they are all coincidentally busier stations. But who knows.

In the summer sure, but in the winter, I'm sure its way warmer in the tunnel stations than outside.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Corvulpes

They're not that much different in temperature from above ground. I don't really know the reasoning. Some have hypothesized that they are all coincidentally busier stations. But who knows.

Based on experience with the Transitway, St-Laurent's temperature and humidity levels are pretty much identical to outside, but I would imagine the downtown stations' temperature/humidity would be much more stable and pleasant.

As for the ridership of each station, the three downtown will all be up there, but several above-ground stations will have higher riderships than St-Laurent.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser View Post
This just proves that Ottawa was smarter in their choice of a fully grade-separated system and that at grade LRT is always a very bad idea.

Tell that to the city of Calgary. Yes, the C-Train has been an absolute disaster.

[CityTech]

C-Train has had many accidents over the years. Lots of fatalities from being at grade.

[On Edge]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Because the airport couldn't stand the fact the train was going to go right past the airport without a station, and the idea of bus-to-train wasn't appealing, and of course the city didn't want to "inconvenience" further south riders by jogging the line into the airport lands, though apparently the single track limiting frequency and the forced transfer at Bayview are not inconveniences in the city's mind.

The rail shuttle is pretty pointless (though works for me because I can make it to the airport without a transfer from where I live), but at least it can be rectified in the future by double tracking north of South Keys, allowing a similar branching service to what the Canada line does.

They could have tried to reduce the transfers from airport to downtown from two to one. Too bad they did not seriously consider running alternate trains to Airport/Limebank, or just carving one car off to go to the airport on each run. Instead we get Airport - South keys. South Keys- Bayview, Bayview-downtown. ugh.