Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[TheMatth69]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Comparing Paris to Ottawa? Really?

There's just no valid reason to worry here. A problem on one of the branches is actually easier to compensate for than a problem on a straight line that blocks service beyond a certain point. And capacity should not be an issue if the system is sized for max capacity at peak. Which they say it is.

I'm not comparing Paris to Ottawa, I'm comparing the configuration to Ottawa's. And this ''T'' configuration is a pain for any mass transit system. Why ? Cause you have to coordinate the branch to fit into one. If one problem happens on one of the branchs it has a domino effect on the rest of the line, especially for trains going West to East.
If trains on one branch are slowed, held or even slightly late this would have an effect on the other branch and the main trunk, since the frequency of the main trunk is a result of the frequencies of the two branchs combined. Also since we are working on a 1 train out of 2 schedule that means that we have to alternate 1 train out of 2 from one of the two branch. If a train coming from Moodie is late, trains coming from Baseline would have to wait for that train to pass, or continue and make a gap in frequency wich is something you do not want on a mass transit.
Also one over problem is the lenght of the line, such a long line would mean that if a westbound train gets held at for exemple Rideau all the other trains going west would be delayed and frequency would be severly affected all the way to the West Terminus.

You are worried about delays and propose a system that would have to be run on rail corridors not owned by OC Transpo? How well do you think that would go?

Also, the goal here is to provide suburban service that approximates the existing Transitway services that are there. Having suburban buses feed suburban rail stations with 30 min frequencies just isn't going to work in an Ottawa where even the suburbs are used to higher frequency services.

There's also the issue of cost and access to the core, which others have covered..... Hardly trivial.

1) If you read what I wrote, I clearly said that one of the steps towards a Commuter Rail would be ''Bying the rails from CN''.
2) I actually propose a mixed system. C-Line for inside the Green Belt with feeder bus INSIDE the Green Belt feeding the C-line INSIDE the Green Belt and a Commuter Rail network with feeder bus feeding mostly OUTSIDE the Green Belt. This would actually have the same result as the current plan, expect that Kanata, Barrhaven and Stittsville resident wouldn't have to rely on a Line that Runs the whole full 40km of Ottawa from East to West.
3) Yes we do save money. What needs to be built is nothing in comparaison to building a C-Line to Kanata and Barrhaven. Rail are mostly all there. Only thing is to build stations, rail bypass, rail signals and buy the line from CN. The only really costly thing that would require the most work is rebuilding the section from Bells Corners to Stittsville witch I believe has been converted mostly into a Trail (the line's imprint is still there).
4) Yes the only problem would be the getting some of the commuter rail's riders to downtown. But a shorter more reliable C-Line would be able to take some of that weight. And nothing is against having one or to feeder bus line from Kanata to Moodie for people going to Tunney's Pasture and Parliament offices. But then again the line would pass by Woodroffe, Merivale, Huntclub, Mooney's Bay Post Canada Office, Canada Revenue Agency, Bilings Bridge, Riverside Hospital and the Saint-Laurent area witch are huge employer sectors in the city.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Roads, not trains encourage sprawl. We can't contain sprawl entirely. People have the right to choose the type of housing they live in. We can reduce sprawl by encouraging more transit oriented development even in the suburbs but there are limits to intensification in already built up areas. Do we want to destroy inner neighbourhoods by widespread demolition of perfectly good older housing?

Perhaps we could have decided to build a light metro from Blair to Bayshore and Baseline, but that ship has sailed.

Sprawl is already there, and since we've decided to run buses on the transitway and highways, our only options are thousands of buses or a few dozen trains to bring transit out there.



Areas like Cyrville are ripe for redevelopment. And I'm fine with"perfectly good older housing" getting demolished and replaced with higher density housing. It's already happening along Scott St.

[J.OT13]

We haven't heard yet if the RSA papers have been officially finalized. I wonder if RTG might be holding the line ransom until the City gives up on recuperating the $30 million bus detour costs from the delay.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We haven't heard yet if the RSA papers have been officially finalized. I wonder if RTG might be holding the line ransom until the City gives up on recuperating the $30 million bus detour costs from the delay.

The city it set to pay RTG something like $200M when RSA is officially achieved, so RTG holding that back would certainly be a bold strategy...

[Corvulpes]

a

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The city it set to pay RTG something like $200M when RSA is officially achieved, so RTG holding that back would certainly be a bold strategy...

The City thinks it holds the high ground because they have the $170 or so million, after deductions, while some could argue RTG has the upper hand by holding the transit line. Imagine the embarrassment if the City can't launch on September 14 like promised after all the hype.

It's a game of chicken. Who will cave-in first?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Corvulpes

I made some inquiries and here is the final word: downtown underground stations will be as cold as -15, as hot as +30.

Thanks for that! Based on that, in winter it should be quite a bit better than the current sidewalk stations, but in summer, it could get pretty bad. More so with A/C running on trains, further heating the tunnels. That is why the Montréal Métro opted not to have A/C on their vehicles and instead design a better air-flow system for the Azures. Of course, it is not a perfect comparison because that system is fully underground. A/C is absolutely necessary for surface running trains.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Roads, not trains encourage sprawl.

This has been proven wrong. Time and again. The very first version of transit induced sprawl is something Ottawa is very familiar with: streetcar suburbs. Not quite what we call sprawl today. But definitely sprawl for its era.

Anything that makes it easier to get more house for less $$$, with the same amount of commute time, induces sprawl. Simple as that. There’s a limit to how long people are willing to commute. And that commute time limit to the core is the limit of your sprawl. Consider the commute times from Barrhaven and Kanata today. Extend the LRT out to them and now you can keep the same commute time and live in Manotick or Carp. Why would new homebuyers looking to maximize house for their dollars not do that?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We can't contain sprawl entirely. People have the right to choose the type of housing they live in.

The disgusting excuse given by every developer who doesn’t give a shit about the city or any environmental issues that go with sprawl. Who gives a shit about climate change as long as they can move houses to young couples right?

And yes we can contain sprawl. We can directly legislate growth. Or if that’s not possible, severely limit its growth through strong disincentives. If we didn’t build transit far beyond the greenbelt, people would think twice about moving to Manotick or Carp or Rockland. Put on congestion charges at the edge of the greenbelt and they’d really think twice about living outside the core.

Lastly, no, you have no “right” to choose the type of housing you live in. I want to live in French Chateaux. Do you think it’s unfair that the government does not facilitate my wish with taxpayer dollars?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We can reduce sprawl by encouraging more transit oriented development even in the suburbs but there are limits to intensification in already built up areas.

More excuses to justify sprawl. You will never be able to build proper TOD in the suburbs, because the raison d’etre for the suburbs is cheap and large homes. A few token townhouses and condos really isn’t going to change much in their actual travel patterns. Barrhaven, Kanata and Orleans will use the LRT mostly for commuting to the core. You won’t see lots of car-less residents in those parts, even with LRT.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Do we want to destroy inner neighbourhoods by widespread demolition of perfectly good older housing?

FUD.

Redeveloping some parts of a neighbourhood to put more density is not going to “destroy inner neighbourhoods”. Has the Glebe or Westboro been “destroyed” because some condos went up?

You parrot developer talking points perfectly. Which developer do you work for?

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Anything that makes it easier to get more house for less $$$, with the same amount of commute time, induces sprawl. Simple as that. There’s a limit to how long people are willing to commute. And that commute time limit to the core is the limit of your sprawl. Consider the commute times from Barrhaven and Kanata today. Extend the LRT out to them and now you can keep the same commute time and live in Manotick or Carp. Why would new homebuyers looking to maximize house for their dollars not do that?

The LRT isn't going to be significantly faster than current express bus service, which uses the highways. The max and average speeds of the trains are 90km/h and 35km/h (post-stage 3). Factor in transfers, and the fact that we didn't opt for even the possibility of express trains in the future, additional stops, etc. People using park&rides or living within walking distance of the stations could save a few minutes, but I doubt that commutes will be significantly shortened for the majority of Kanata and Barrhaven residents, or even for people in Carp and Rockland.

Personal anecdote: the LRT is only about 2 minutes faster than rapid bus transit between Bayview and Hurdman in the middle of the day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

If trains on one branch are slowed, held or even slightly late this would have an effect on the other branch and the main trunk, since the frequency of the main trunk is a result of the frequencies of the two branchs combined. Also since we are working on a 1 train out of 2 schedule that means that we have to alternate 1 train out of 2 from one of the two branch. If a train coming from Moodie is late, trains coming from Baseline would have to wait for that train to pass, or continue and make a gap in frequency wich is something you do not want on a mass transit.

You seem to have a very naïve view of network management. That’s most definitely not how networks are managed in real life. Especially not on ones equipped with modern switching. If the train coming from Moodie is late, the train from Baseline isn’t waiting, it’s switched through on to the trunk. Maintaining trunk frequency is the priority here. It’s not a zipper merge and there’s no need to precisely stack trains. All eastbound trains are going to Blair, so the order is irrelevant. Westbound service will run at some rough ratio of the two branches. If a train or two is missed, it’s really no more challenging than say a short-turn that happens on the subway in Toronto.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

Also one over problem is the lenght of the line, such a long line would mean that if a westbound train gets held at for exemple Rideau all the other trains going west would be delayed and frequency would be severly affected all the way to the West Terminus.

This is true of any rail service. There’s no alternative here unless you spend billions more to to third track every transit line.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

1) If you read what I wrote, I clearly said that one of the steps towards a Commuter Rail would be ''Bying the rails from CN''.

You assume CN is willing to sell the rails for a price the city can afford.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

2) I actually propose a mixed system. C-Line for inside the Green Belt with feeder bus INSIDE the Green Belt feeding the C-line INSIDE the Green Belt and a Commuter Rail network with feeder bus feeding mostly OUTSIDE the Green Belt. This would actually have the same result as the current plan, expect that Kanata, Barrhaven and Stittsville resident wouldn't have to rely on a Line that Runs the whole full 40km of Ottawa from East to West.

You ignored the frequency issue I mentioned. Those suburban residents are use to reasonably frequent Transitway bus service. If we were go from <10 min Transitway bus service to expecting Kanata, Barrhaven and Stittsville residents to transfer from feeder buses to commuter trains running every 30 minutes, transit ridership would plummet. We are literally better off simply running frequent buses to Moodie.

And I’m not sure you can’t build commuter rail that comes to even half that frequency….at least not cheaply. You can build LRT that approximates that level of service.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

3) Yes we do save money. What needs to be built is nothing in comparaison to building a C-Line to Kanata and Barrhaven. Rail are mostly all there. Only thing is to build stations, rail bypass, rail signals and buy the line from CN. The only really costly thing that would require the most work is rebuilding the section from Bells Corners to Stittsville witch I believe has been converted mostly into a Trail (the line's imprint is still there).

You are assuming it’s cheap to build. Get around to twin tracking substantial portions (for two way service), building lots of grade separations and widening existing grade separations and it doesn’t look as cheap anymore.

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

4) Yes the only problem would be the getting some of the commuter rail's riders to downtown. But a shorter more reliable C-Line would be able to take some of that weight. And nothing is against having one or to feeder bus line from Kanata to Moodie for people going to Tunney's Pasture and Parliament offices. But then again the line would pass by Woodroffe, Merivale, Huntclub, Mooney's Bay Post Canada Office, Canada Revenue Agency, Bilings Bridge, Riverside Hospital and the Saint-Laurent area witch are huge employer sectors in the city.

Those destinations you mention don’t close to the number of commuters bound for the core. And spending even several hundred million to cater to them is not worthwhile. It’s very, very likely that the commuter system you envisision might have an order of magnitude lower ridership than LRT to those suburbs.

A commuter rail system would be far less worthwhile than simply spending the same money bolstering bus service in the suburbs. Frequent bus service would go a long way to boosting intra-suburb ridership and the use of the LRT by core-bound passengers.

[chronicsurfer]

-- Deleted --

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The LRT isn't going to be significantly faster than current express bus service, which uses the highways. The max and average speeds of the trains are 90km/h and 35km/h (post-stage 3). Factor in transfers, and the fact that we didn't opt for even the possibility of express trains in the future, additional stops, etc. People using park&rides or living within walking distance of the stations could save a few minutes, but I doubt that commutes will be significantly shortened for the majority of Kanata and Barrhaven residents, or even for people in Carp and Rockland.

Thank God we didn’t build in express capacity. People would be planning on living in Arnprior and driving to Kanata to start their commutes!

We’ll see how it turns out. But I’m fairly confident that end-to-end a lot of western suburban commuters will see some time savings. And even if it’s 10 mins, that’s 10 mins further that you can live. It’s difference between buying in Stittsville or buying in Carp. Likewise, it’s the difference between Barrhaven and Manotick. Had this been countered with zoned fares, it would have been less of an issue.

The completion of the station at Trim, will be quite revealing. If we see Rockland take off, we’ll have first-hand evidence of how transit induced sprawl is going to happen in the west after Stage 3.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The City thinks it holds the high ground because they have the $170 or so million, after deductions, while some could argue RTG has the upper hand by holding the transit line. Imagine the embarrassment if the City can't launch on September 14 like promised after all the hype.

It's a game of chicken. Who will cave-in first?

The city. Political embarrassment trumps cost. Also the city is incurring costs every day that they have to rely on buses. Far easier to launch and sue for compensation after.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Roads, not trains encourage sprawl. We can't contain sprawl entirely. People have the right to choose the type of housing they live in. We can reduce sprawl by encouraging more transit oriented development even in the suburbs but there are limits to intensification in already built up areas. Do we want to destroy inner neighbourhoods by widespread demolition of perfectly good older housing?

I agree with this. Go ahead and densify around transit lines, but preserve character neighborhoods built up until the end of the streetcar era.

We're already seeing a lot of out-of-place monstrosities replacing beautiful old houses and apartments in the Glebe, Hintonburg (south of Wellington West, not much character north between the main street area and transit trench), Centretown, Westboro...

[CityTech]

Westboro's original housing is not exactly "beautiful old houses". Westboro was a ramshackle exurb when it was first built up. Mostly shoddy timber frame housing with siding on the outside.

My house is an original era Westboro house from the 1920s and its in pretty poor shape. The property would be worth more as an empty lot, probably. It will likely be condemned within 10 years unless it gets repairs whose cost will probably exceed the house's salvage value. (Thankfully I won't be living in it much longer).

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Thank God we didn’t build in express capacity. People would be planning on living in Arnprior and driving to Kanata to start their commutes!

We’ll see how it turns out. But I’m fairly confident that end-to-end a lot of western suburban commuters will see some time savings. And even if it’s 10 mins, that’s 10 mins further that you can live. It’s difference between buying in Stittsville or buying in Carp. Likewise, it’s the difference between Barrhaven and Manotick. Had this been countered with zoned fares, it would have been less of an issue.

The completion of the station at Trim, will be quite revealing. If we see Rockland take off, we’ll have first-hand evidence of how transit induced sprawl is going to happen in the west after Stage 3.

I totally agree with what you say, I'd only point out that it's not too late for us to move to a zoned fare system or a tap-on-tap-off fare system. Actually I think we should move to a tap-on-tap-off system no matter what happens. Why should Johnny Commuter get to ride from stage 3 Canadian Tire Centre, have a guaranteed seat with enough room to put his feet up for the same price as Suzy Centretowner who just wants to pop over to Rideau Centre to run a quick errand and who has to contend with crush load trains and standing room only?

On principle that's just unfair and it's another example of Centretowners subsidizing unsustainable suburban lifestyles.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I totally agree with what you say, I'd only point out that it's not too late for us to move to a zoned fare system or a tap-on-tap-off fare system. Actually I think we should move to a tap-on-tap-off system no matter what happens. Why should Johnny Commuter get to ride from stage 3 Canadian Tire Centre, have a guaranteed seat with enough room to put his feet up for the same price as Suzy Centretowner who just wants to pop over to Rideau Centre to run a quick errand and who has to contend with crush load trains and standing room only?

On principle that's just unfair and it's another example of Centretowners subsidizing unsustainable suburban lifestyles.

I agree the City should implement a two zone system; inside the Greenbelt and outside the Greenbelt. Alternatively, start charging for park-and-ride usage.

Any such system should be implemented after Stage 2.

To solve your Suzy Centretowner issue, short run-trains from Lincoln Fields to Blair (Bayshore to Blair/Algonquin to Blair after Stage 3) should be implemented at rush-hour. That could result in, for example, 2 minute in service for the urban area, 6 minute service for the west branches and 4 minute service for Orléans (because it is closer and has a higher ridership than the west ends).

If we ever double track the Trillium, or at least achieve 8 minute frequencies, then have every second or third train run between Airport and back to Bayview. Not as much about serving the Airport, but to provide better service to the inner-Greenbelt part of the line.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree the City should implement a two zone system; inside the Greenbelt and outside the Greenbelt. Alternatively, start charging for park-and-ride usage.

Free parking is particularly nuts. It costs a lot to build these lots. And takes away developable land beside a station. It's offered up for free. Insanity.

I would add, that any zoned fare system probably needs to also be accompanied by a congestion charge or you'll simply move suburbanites from transit to their cars. You also need to sort out the buses so that they remain unzoned or don't cross the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Any such system should be implemented after Stage 2.

Yep. The earlier we have this debate, the easier it'll be.

As it stands, the suburban dominated council might not even allow discussion on this today.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This has been proven wrong. Time and again. The very first version of transit induced sprawl is something Ottawa is very familiar with: streetcar suburbs. Not quite what we call sprawl today. But definitely sprawl for its era.

Anything that makes it easier to get more house for less $$$, with the same amount of commute time, induces sprawl. Simple as that. There’s a limit to how long people are willing to commute. And that commute time limit to the core is the limit of your sprawl. Consider the commute times from Barrhaven and Kanata today. Extend the LRT out to them and now you can keep the same commute time and live in Manotick or Carp. Why would new homebuyers looking to maximize house for their dollars not do that?



The disgusting excuse given by every developer who doesn’t give a shit about the city or any environmental issues that go with sprawl. Who gives a shit about climate change as long as they can move houses to young couples right?

And yes we can contain sprawl. We can directly legislate growth. Or if that’s not possible, severely limit its growth through strong disincentives. If we didn’t build transit far beyond the greenbelt, people would think twice about moving to Manotick or Carp or Rockland. Put on congestion charges at the edge of the greenbelt and they’d really think twice about living outside the core.

Lastly, no, you have no “right” to choose the type of housing you live in. I want to live in French Chateaux. Do you think it’s unfair that the government does not facilitate my wish with taxpayer dollars?



More excuses to justify sprawl. You will never be able to build proper TOD in the suburbs, because the raison d’etre for the suburbs is cheap and large homes. A few token townhouses and condos really isn’t going to change much in their actual travel patterns. Barrhaven, Kanata and Orleans will use the LRT mostly for commuting to the core. You won’t see lots of car-less residents in those parts, even with LRT.



FUD.

Redeveloping some parts of a neighbourhood to put more density is not going to “destroy inner neighbourhoods”. Has the Glebe or Westboro been “destroyed” because some condos went up?

You parrot developer talking points perfectly. Which developer do you work for?

We haven't built rail past the Greenbelt yet. We originally orient all suburbs towards cars. That is the big problem. We build rail too late, therefore, you can't really influence the design of suburbs. Complain all you want about developers but they have to provide what the market wants otherwise they are out of business.

The more you restrict housing development, the higher the price of housing everywhere in the city. It forces price conscious people to go even further out and commute even longer distances. Nobody wins.

If we take draconian measures to force people to live in the inner city, do you think Westboro and the Glebe would remain what they are today? Property prices would sky rocket and demolition would accelerate. The wealthier home owners will leave for more stable locations. You can't claim that the status quo would remain when interfering with market forces.

[AR-OTT]

I'm not going to justify the lrt extensions to the suburbs. However, one added benefit of doing it is that the lrt network is now Ottawa's metro network rather than just Urban Ottawa's metro network.

If say, a Bank street subway connecting to the confederation line is proposed sometime in the future (since its such a popular suggestion on this forum), voters and councilors in Kanata, Barhaven and Orleans will be more likely to support it. The Bank st subway is nowhere near them, but its still an upgrade on their metro network and their local lrt station can now take them further than it could before.

I don't think its fair that the transit development in the core depends on the support of the suburbs but I do think stage 2 and 3 will help voters outside the greenbelt see the benefit of further urban transit investment.