Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we should prioritize double-tracking the Trillium line as a matter of principle.

I agree. It's unfortunate that we're cheaping out by deferring the Walkley underpass twinning in Stage 2.

Should the "needs" of the relatively small number of people who live in Riverside south or Leitrim outweigh the needs of literally everybody else in the entire capital region to have access to our airport? I think we're already doing more than enough to subsidize their suburban, car-centric way of life. If they have to endure the inconvenience of slightly less frequent train service, we'll just all have to find a way to cope with that vicissitude of life.

Shouldn't we be building out LRT system to maximize ridership? Say what you will about those suburbs, the transit demand to/from those communities will be greater than transit demand to/from the airport.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we should prioritize double-tracking the Trillium line as a matter of principle. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the priority for the city. So, given the city's current half-assed and neglected approach to the Trillium line, we're going to have to make some tough choices. (Almost) Everybody in the NCR needs occasionally to get to and from the airport. That should have been the operational priority from the start even if it meant sacrificing ridership in the southern suburbs.

Should the "needs" of the relatively small number of people who live in Riverside south or Leitrim outweigh the needs of literally everybody else in the entire capital region to have access to our airport? I think we're already doing more than enough to subsidize their suburban, car-centric way of life. If they have to endure the inconvenience of slightly less frequent train service, we'll just all have to find a way to cope with that vicissitude of life.

If you can show more total ridership to the airport than from Riverside South and Leitrim, you'll have a case.

[Prometheus188]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think we should prioritize double-tracking the Trillium line as a matter of principle. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the priority for the city. So, given the city's current half-assed and neglected approach to the Trillium line, we're going to have to make some tough choices. (Almost) Everybody in the NCR needs occasionally to get to and from the airport. That should have been the operational priority from the start even if it meant sacrificing ridership in the southern suburbs.

Should the "needs" of the relatively small number of people who live in Riverside south or Leitrim outweigh the needs of literally everybody else in the entire capital region to have access to our airport?

None of this makes any sense. The ridership on the main Trillium Line is literally more than 10 times higher than the airport spur. Why would you sacrifice the ridership of 90%+ of the line, to help the 10% or less going to the airport? Why is everyone obsessed with the airport? Studies show that airports are horrible at generating public transit trips. The best trip generators are employment nodes (including universities), followed by residential density. Airports are at the bottom of the list.

So why is everyone obsessed with getting to the airport? How often do you go to the airport? Once a year? Less? Annual vacation? We should spend hundreds of millions on a LRT extension to a low ridership airport, and on top of that, you want to sacrifice service on the main line, to serve a low ridership airport? Why on earth is everyone obsessed with the airport? I don't get it.


Not to mention that the Trillium Line already has very low frequencies for a "rapid transit" rail line. 12 minutes is already pretty bad. Alternating trains would lead to 24 minute frequencies for both the main line and the airport spur. That would make all trips take longer. Transfers don't make trips longer, low frequencies do, much more so than the former.


Double tracking and electrifying the Trillium Line would have added over a billion dollars to the already high cost of the expansion. Can we really justify 1 billion EXTRA dollars? Here's some ridership stats, PPHPD = People per direction per hour.


Stage 1 Confed: 10,700 PPHPD

Stage 2 Confed: 15,000-18,000 PPHPD, with final capacity for 24,000 PPHPD


Existing Trillium: 1400 PPHPD

Stage 2 Trillium: 2800 PPHPD

Isn't it obvious that our limited transit dollars shouldn't be used on the Trillium Line? At least not for double tracking or reducing service on the mainline to support a low ridership airport spur.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem is the frequency of service on the main line. With a maximum frequency of 1 train every 12 minutes, alternating trains would mean a maximum frequency of 1 train every 24 minutes on each branch. That just isn't frequent enough to be convenient during peak periods (it isn't all about capacity). Off peak it might be okay (currently they only have 30 minute service south of the airport then), but then it gets more confusing to the user if they only have direct trains off peak.

confusing? not at all. Its quite simple, its in a way a form of interlining. Simply call the Airport bound train Trillium Airport and it can remain a one car train, and the Leitrim bound train Trillium Leitrim and that would be a 2-car train. This is done in many cities around the world with ease and no confusion at all.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Radster

Maybe they will run alternate trains one day when they realise how empty the trains from the South are and how inconvenient it is to transfer twice from the Airport to Downtown? Maybe not every second train, but every 3rd train could be airport bound from Bayview one day?

So you have to wait 30 minutes at the airport for your train? Not to mention stranded tourists taking the wrong train and ending up at Bowesville? No thanks.
I'll take easy transfer at South Keys any day. Making it painless cross-platform transfer is the key.
I maintain that train-to-train transfers within the same network are not an issue. It only becomes a nuisance for daily commutes.

[passwordisnt123]

Our dollars aren't as limited as we may think. Ottawa's municipal debt-per-capita is just $1878, which is lower than lots of other major cities like Quebec City ($2020), Montreal ($2947), Calgary ($2334), Edmonton ($2069)*. Also, the cost of borrowing in the last 15 years or so has literally never been lower in living memory (or maybe even recorded Canadian History?). It's hard to think of a better time to be making big and bold investments in our city's infrastructure like fully double-tracking and interlining the Trillium in the style of the Canada Line than it is right now.

To step back though and return to the more philosophical point here: Each ride on public transit is itself subsidized. The fares paid don't cover anywhere near the total cost in either the short run or the long run. The fact that lots of people in the southern suburbs want subsidized gifts is not exactly surprising. I also like free money. But life doesn't always work that way. The fact that there may be greater demand in the southern suburbs for free money isn't to me an argument for why those people ought to get untrammeled, non-interlined rail service.

*Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-debt-map-canada-1.3557745 Admittedly a bit old, 2016. Not sure if anybody has more up-to-date numbers.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Wind chill and humidex are real things and are calculated based on the evaporative properties of skin.

Wind chill and humidex values are determined by formulas made by Environment Canada based on a combination of physics and studies using human participants. As I said before, they only apply to humans and not inanimate objects. They are also an estimate as there are a variety of factors that can't be accounted for in the real world. Regarding plants and animals, a similar effect exists, but the formulas would likely be slightly different.

Point is Humidex (a uniquely Canadian creation) artificially exaggerates the temperature, often quite widely, and many people (including Weather Forecasters) speak as if it's "real" temperature.

To show how silly Humidex is, here's a screenshot of a recent day here in Phoenix.. This is from The Weather Network (a Canadian site). How many Humidex fans would say, "whew, it only feels like 42".. not one I bet. They use it only to make it seem hotter than it is.



Weather.com (a US based site), uses the global standard "heat index". I didn't screenshot it, but it said 46, feels like 46.

Now back to your regularly scheduled LRT thread

[Gat-Train]

I was at Tunney's Pasture yesterday. At one point, there was a train stopped on the north platform, and then the station announcements kept saying "all eastbound trains to Blair are departing on Platform 2". That train didn't move before I left.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Our dollars aren't as limited as we may think. Ottawa's municipal debt-per-capita is just $1878, which is lower than lots of other major cities like Quebec City ($2020), Montreal ($2947), Calgary ($2334), Edmonton ($2069)*. Also, the cost of borrowing in the last 15 years or so has literally never been lower in living memory (or maybe even recorded Canadian History?).

Just to put the 2016 dollar values into perspective a little bit. And the caveat here is that those numbers have almost certainly shifted a bit in the interim but let's assume the picture is more or less the same. If that assumption is true, Ottawa with its 1 million population could drop $1 billion dollars tomorrow ($3 billion if we got equal buy-in from the feds and province) and we'd still have a lower debt-per-capita ratio than Montreal.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Our dollars aren't as limited as we may think. Ottawa's municipal debt-per-capita is just $1878, which is lower than lots of other major cities like Quebec City ($2020), Montreal ($2947), Calgary ($2334), Edmonton ($2069)*. Also, the cost of borrowing in the last 15 years or so has literally never been lower in living memory (or maybe even recorded Canadian History?). It's hard to think of a better time to be making big and bold investments in our city's infrastructure like fully double-tracking and interlining the Trillium in the style of the Canada Line than it is right now.

*Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-debt-map-canada-1.3557745 Admittedly a bit old, 2016. Not sure if anybody has more up-to-date numbers.

After approving Stage 2, which was much more expensive than the City anticipated, the Ottawa numbers have probably gone up significantly.

Now that we are building Trillium as proposed, with 12 minute frequencies and mostly single track, the South Keys transfer probably is the better way forward. If we ran single trains for direct airport service, then that would reduce the capacity if the main line significantly. If we were to have direct trains to the airport at certain times only (off peak), then it could cause confusion.

My hope is that the City either decides to re-build the Walkley overpass and double track that portion to increase frequency to 10 minutes during Stage 2 construction, or quickly responds to the inevitable capacity issues immediately after Stage 2 opens and does that same work within a few months to a year without closing the line (which will no longer be an option after Stage 2 due to the increased, all ridership).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Just to put the 2016 dollar values into perspective a little bit. And the caveat here is that those numbers have almost certainly shifted a bit in the interim but let's assume the picture is more or less the same. If that assumption is true, Ottawa with its 1 million population could drop $1 billion dollars tomorrow ($3 billion if we got equal buy-in from the feds and province) and we'd still have a lower debt-per-capita ratio than Montreal.

We're inuring around $2 billion in debt with Stage 2, a billion more than initially planned. Plus the gas tax transfers, a billion dollars worth in 30 years, have been slashed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Radster

confusing? not at all. Its quite simple, its in a way a form of interlining. Simply call the Airport bound train Trillium Airport and it can remain a one car train, and the Leitrim bound train Trillium Leitrim and that would be a 2-car train.

It isn't the interlining that is confusing. It is the lack of consistency that is confusing. Those who use it regularly wont' have a problem. It is the occasional users and tourists who will confused as to why they can't catch a train to the airport at Bayview when that is where they transferred when they arrived.

This is done in many cities around the world with ease and no confusion at all.

Name a city that only has direct service off peak and requires a transfer during peak periods. I don't know of any.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

To step back though and return to the more philosophical point here: Each ride on public transit is itself subsidized. The fares paid don't cover anywhere near the total cost in either the short run or the long run. The fact that lots of people in the southern suburbs want subsidized gifts is not exactly surprising. I also like free money. But life doesn't always work that way. The fact that there may be greater demand in the southern suburbs for free money isn't to me an argument for why those people ought to get untrammeled, non-interlined rail service.

So your argument is... that we should run frequent trains to the airport no matter how empty they are, and run jam-packed, infrequent trains to the southern suburbs because providing better service would be a "gift"?

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

So your argument is... that we should run frequent trains to the airport no matter how empty they are, and run jam-packed, infrequent trains to the southern suburbs because providing better service would be a "gift"?

No, I'm saying we should use the historically low interest rates to invest in double tracking the whole thing so that we can offer a high quality interlined service from the southern suburbs and the airport to Bayview station. But, if we're going to stick with the current neglectful approach to the Trillium line, the southern suburbs should find a way to be happy with whatever we give them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Point is Humidex (a uniquely Canadian creation) artificially exaggerates the temperature, often quite widely, and many people (including Weather Forecasters) speak as if it's "real" temperature.

Just because some people use it inappropriately, doesn't mean it has no value. It isn't a real temperature but an indication of how hot it feels to a person.

To show how silly Humidex is, here's a screenshot of a recent day here in Phoenix.. This is from The Weather Network (a Canadian site). How many Humidex fans would say, "whew, it only feels like 42".. not one I bet. They use it only to make it seem hotter than it is.

Just because The Weather Network's app has a bug that doesn't disregard negative values for humidity compensation, doesn't mean the formula itself is flawed. I would ask what does Environment Canada (the authors of Humidex) say the temperature is in Phoenix, but I don't think they report American weather conditions.

Weather.com (a US based site), uses the global standard "heat index". I didn't screenshot it, but it said 46, feels like 46.

Your screen shot doesn't show what the relative humidity was at the time, but assuming it was 10% (extremely low, but it is Phoenix) and using the Heat Index formula (with the metric coefficients), you would get a "Feels Like" temperature of 43 degrees C, so it has the same bug when the relative humidity is extremely low.

My guess is Weather.com's app is disregarding the "Heat Index" if it is making the temperature feel cooler than the actual temperature.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

No, I'm saying we should use the historically low interest rates to invest in double tracking the whole thing so that we can offer a high quality interlined service from the southern suburbs and the airport to Bayview station. But, if we're going to stick with the current neglectful approach to the Trillium line, the southern suburbs should find a way to be happy with whatever we give them.

Do you realize the impact of neglect? Obviously, you don't have to put up with the current traffic situation, which is only going to get worse. We cannot even afford to 4-lane Bank Street the short distance from Leitrim Road to Findlay Creek. Furthermore, all those traffic problems will expand in every direction. Already, the airport parkway is a mess during peak-periods. I guess the only way to force people onto an airport train is to make it very difficult to get there by other means. A very bad plan.

Ignore taxpayers at your peril.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem is the frequency of service on the main line. With a maximum frequency of 1 train every 12 minutes, alternating trains would mean a maximum frequency of 1 train every 24 minutes on each branch. That just isn't frequent enough to be convenient during peak periods (it isn't all about capacity). Off peak it might be okay (currently they only have 30 minute service south of the airport then), but then it gets more confusing to the user if they only have direct trains off peak.

If they can get it down to 1 train every 10 minutes on the main line, it would be better, but probably still not quite frequent enough (there is something physiological about 15 minute intervals). They really need to get it down to 1 train every 7-8 minutes on the main line before they can start thinking about alternating service.

I wonder what the other upgrade to gain service every 8 minutes is and how much it would cost. I would guess that it's an upgrade to either Carling or Greenboro and cost somewhere between $10-50 million.

Originally Posted by corynv

one thing they could go (eventually, not immediately) to do some sort of hybrid service. Where some trains starting at limebank only go as for north as south keys, which allowed a train coming from the airport to continue north, but the frequency stays the same. And some trains some the airport will only go to southkeys as well

This was the original plan.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem is both the EY Centre and Airport stations will have shorter platforms, so they wouldn't be able to run full length trains on that branch.

I wonder how much it would cost to just extend those platforms with empty concrete slabs that would only be used for special events at Uplands. Heck, you could even get away with only extending the platforms at Uplands, or even just one of them. The extra long passing track on the spur allows for much higher frequencies than the mainline. For events you could run shuttle trains between South Keys and Uplands or something. The only hope for this (and it's really not a thing) is that every render of the airport spur used the full length FLIRTs... but I think we all know that those were almost certainly placeholders.

I wrote a lot about this in the other thread (and maybe this discussion should be moved there).

If we had 8 minute service then alternating between branches may be feasible since either branch would, at worst, have a train every 16 minutes which is much more reasonable. The original plan also used the existing size of train wihch meant full compatibility across all branches.

I wonder what the cost difference between doubling the length of every station and buying longer trains was compared to the two (or more) modifications required to improve the levels of service on the line. That said, the original plan did include provisions to lengthen the trains (by one car) "shortly" after launch (maybe a decade or so.) since they had planned 60m platforms, so I don't know how that would compare to just using even longer trains right off the bat.

I suspect the deciding factor was risk. They had just come out from a complete failure of an upgrade, and there may not be a guarantee that any small changes would bring the 8-minute level of service so they went with the option to increase capacity that couldn't possibly go wrong -- which is just to double the size of your trains.

[J.OT13]

That's another thing. Not only will we need to increase frequency to keep-up with demand, but Carling Station will require a complete rebuild (double track, duel platforms, entrances on both sides of Carling) to serve the new Civic Hospital and increased density. Carling is by far the most under-built station when compared to potential ridership over the next 10 years.

[Corvulpes]

a

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Corvulpes

The ice throughout the tunnel last winter disagrees with you.
Don't forget there's no sun down there, and also cold air sinks. And there are large vent shafts. It's really cold.

While I might agree with you that there will be ice in portions of the tunnel, the stations seem to have heat tracing installed in the floors, likely to bring the temperature from going below freezing. From the February 8, 2018 update:

Lyon Station
Construction is ongoing at the station and includes installation of heat tracing, TVS axial fans, and communication system wiring at the platform level.