Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

There's some points of view we have in common. But I don't believe our worldview is all that close at all. You are projecting your selfishness onto others. You advocate for your personal benefit, and that's why you can't imagine anybody else not doing the same. It's a classic boomer trait.

I've already explained that I didn't live anywhere near the planned line when I advocated against the old plan. And I would not change my point of view if I live anywhere else. I've seen what politically driven transit plans can do, from my time in Toronto. And this is exactly why I'm a strong believer in transit dollars going towards maximizing ridership above all else. I will support investment in real riders over hypothetical riders even if it were to be at my own interest.

I am also less attached to the idea that I need to advocate for a certain end of town, because my career moves me in and out of Ottawa, and to jobs around the city. I could easily end up living and working elsewhere in Ottawa. That reality has me looking at Ottawa as whole, as opposed to just a part of it here or there.

You know that saying that I am selfish is really insulting. My position is much more complex than you suggest. If I was being selfish, I would be wanting rail to my door. I know this will never happen and I would never expect it and I have never suggested it.

My question to you, is why did you advocate against a rail plan that was going to benefit tens of thousands of people in this city? Why are you even admitting it? This has cost taxpayers both the $100M original costs in direct payments and planning costs that were subsequently trashed in almost their entirety. There have been millions in other hidden costs as we have built parts of the original plan on a piecemeal basis, always at a much higher cost. We lost 10 years in getting LRT going in Ottawa when Phase 2 was going to be an east-west line anyways in the same time frame as has happened. What has been lost will never be recovered, both in costs and opportunity. You can say all you want about how the Trillium Line should be upgraded, but that won't be happening, and there is a direct impact in the long-term on South Ottawa that you fail to understand. This is not about me personally. It is about my whole sector of the city. I don't understand why you use the 'selfish' label to invalidate my comments. It is an unfair representation. This forum needs comments from a broad range of perspectives.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Information and wayfinding in general is poorly done. Earlier I pointed out how confusing the headboards can be when they are above you on the platform. In Toronto, they are in front of you when on the platform, not behind you. So you can tell which direction you are travelling. I have no idea why they put they behind you.

Signage to exits, connections, platforms is lacking. Not sure this is an OC Transpo flaw (though OCT is bad at this in general) as much as RTG cheaping out. That's how DBFOMs work after all.

I have found the navigation to be mostly VERY intuitive - better than almost any other system I've been on. But yes, there are a few fails - need to start taking some notes.

[zzptichka]

I love that little walk from Tremblay to Train station. The art is great. Glad they didn't go with some underground tunnel 🞵🞵🞵🞵.
Lack of escalators though - not so much. I doubt it has anything to do with safety. Most likely because it will probably have the lowest ridership. They could've installed automatic escalators that turn on when passengers approach it but looks like they just cheaped out.

[lrt's friend]

Why exactly would the politicians, let alone the public, support building a tunnel to run in parallel to the exact same corridor that was just built and supposed to address transit needs through the core? Can you show me any city where a line was built and the politicians and public happily paid for a parallel corridor just 5 to 10 years later? More particularly can you show an example of this in Canada, or any city of a similar size to Ottawa where this happened?

What you believe would have happened through your rose tinted glasses is what the rest of us can't agree on, as a realistic outcome. And that's where the difference of opinion lies. The rest of us see the likelihood that the public and politicians would question why a half billion dollar tunnel would be required after a recent construction project through the core. And then we'd end up with a decade or two of squabbling before it actually got built.

Why did you not advocate to make sure a proper east-west tunnel was built instead of advocating to kill an already approved project that was clearly going to benefit a lot of people? This would have been far more constructive.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I love that little walk from Tremblay to Train station. The art is great. Glad they didn't go with some underground tunnel 🞵🞵🞵🞵.
Lack of escalators though - not so much. I doubt it has anything to do with safety. Most likely because it will probably have the lowest ridership. They could've installed automatic escalators that turn on when passengers approach it but looks like they just cheaped out.

I am really curious what ridership is like at the station. And if it justified the capital cost.

As for shelter, they didn't have to make a tunnel. But they certainly could have made a more sheltered walkway. Part of this is VIA's problem and they'll have to get in involved with covering up the walkway leading up to the front door from the station. I suspect at this point, all this awaiting word (and funding) on HFR.

[lrt's friend]

You know what suppresses ridership far more in the south end? Our 🞵🞵🞵🞵 bus services. Taking Trillium to say 4-6 minute service won't dramatically increase ridership if the feeder bus service is still 🞵🞵🞵🞵. The transfer at Bayview is not close to the primary deterrent that you think it is. Think of Hurdman, for example. How many people think Hurdman is a deterrent to ridership? Ottawa is big city and getting bigger. People need to get used to the idea of transferring. Please read Jarrett Walker's piece on transferring, for a professional take on it. He specifically discusses the issues that 9-5 commuters have with transferring.

Ottawa residents also need to get over their downtown centric fixation with transit. It's a particular fixation in North America where a mostly suburban public largely only takes transit to/from work. You can't, however, build an effective alternative to the car, if all your transit is downtown focused. This is becoming particularly obvious in the GTA for example, where anybody traveling from different parts of the 905 to other parts of the 905 would need to go through Union station because that's how GO is largely designed. I would hope we can be smarter than that in Ottawa.

Transfers work if frequency is good throughout. I agree. I have also been advocating for better local service, and better cross connections, including the Baseline BRT. But the trunk line cannot also be the weak point.

If you look at my comment history, I have also complained that we are making our transit system too downtown-centric.

So on many, many points, we do agree.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why did you not advocate to make sure a proper east-west tunnel was built instead of advocating to kill an already approved project that was clearly going to benefit a lot of people? This would have been far more constructive.

Because at the point at which I moved to Ottawa and first started getting involved at attending consultations, the process was already far enough along. Indeed, part of the reason I started attending hearings is that I was curious about the issues and how I should vote on them for the election in 2006.

Also, it wasn't that I was gunning for a cancellation. I wanted a tunnel. Advocated for that. And voted for the mayoral candidate who I felt was best positioned to fix the issues in that plan. It became plenty clear in every presentation I attended, that the majority of passenger flow was East-west. And that there were capacity limitations with not having a tunnel. Every city engineer would point out in their presentation or in chats after, that surface running had inherent limitations. That is what formed my opinion. I would have been just as fine with the old plan with a tunnel left in. Heck, my position was less extreme than others like David Jeanes who were adamant at the time that N-S LRT was not serving the bulk of riders who were East-West.

That all the machinations resulted in a more East-West focused plan that also serves more riders was an unexpected bonus to me. More riders benefiting is always a good thing to me.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am really curious what ridership is like at the station. And if it justified the capital cost.

As for shelter, they didn't have to make a tunnel. But they certainly could have made a more sheltered walkway. Part of this is VIA's problem and they'll have to do it too.

Yes, but a station designed mainly for access to the rail station should be designed for ease of access. The UPX also had low ridership when it was opened but ease of access was emphasized and ridership has grown a lot since then. The old Transitway station was built 30 years ago at a time when rail ridership was falling and prospects looked poor. Times have now changed and rail ridership is increasing and the C-Train should make more people forgo taxis and Uber. As I said, retrofitting the station later will cost much more money. I understand that compromises are made to keep costs reasonable and this is one of those compromises.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I have found the navigation to be mostly VERY intuitive - better than almost any other system I've been on. But yes, there are a few fails - need to start taking some notes.

A lot of the that can be chalked down to a new system with station designs that can make for more intuitive flow. That said, I think signage is lacking. And the signage that's there tends to be on the smaller side and sometimes poorly placed. Mostly, just a lot of inconsistency. For example, the directing signs to the stations that sometimes point out direction, time or distance.

Is it terrible? No. But it could be better.

And I am trying to imagine how this is going to work in the future when there's no info/attendants at what are supposed to be unmanned stations. I can see confusion on visitors or occasional users. If I'm a regular transit user and find issues, imagine those who have never been to the city or don't take transit often.

To be absolutely fair, it's not just an OC Transpo thing. Ottawa in general 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 at wayfinding and signage.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because at the point at which I moved to Ottawa and first started getting involved at attending consultations, the process was already far enough along. Indeed, part of the reason I started attending hearings is that I was curious about the issues and how I should vote on them for the election in 2006.

Also, it wasn't that I was gunning for a cancellation. I wanted a tunnel. Advocated for that. And voted for the mayoral candidate who I felt was best positioned to fix the issues in that plan. It became plenty clear in every presentation I attended, that the majority of passenger flow was East-west. And that there were capacity limitations with not having a tunnel. Every city engineer would point out in their presentation or in chats after, that surface running had inherent limitations. That is what formed my opinion. I would have been just as fine with the old plan with a tunnel left in. Heck, my position was less extreme than others like David Jeanes who were adamant at the time that N-S LRT was not serving the bulk of riders who were East-West.

That all the machinations resulted in a more East-West focused plan that also serves more riders was an unexpected bonus to me. More riders benefiting is always a good thing to me.

That is fair. I understand your position, however, what happened was due to Larry O'Brien's inexperience. It is too bad that this was his very first vote and was required to break a tie. If he was more savvy and there was more time to resolve the issue, a better solution could have been found that would have preserved our investment and got the tunnel built. I would have been cheering up and down at that prospect. John Baird did us no favours in misrepresenting what was going on and blocking funding at the last minute. His position was nothing more than the worst kind of politicking.

This was a major loss for South Ottawa residents which is never going to be fixed within most of our lifetimes. Don't get me wrong. I fully support and understand the benefits to the city as a whole in having the tunnel.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You know that saying that I am selfish is really insulting. My position is much more complex than you suggest. If I was being selfish, I would be wanting rail to my door. I know this will never happen and I would never expect it and I have never suggested it.

My reading of your posts on here, is that you really struggle to see transit as an issue for the whole city, rather than just from the perspective of a south end resident.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My question to you, is why did you advocate against a rail plan that was going to benefit tens of thousands of people in this city? Why are you even admitting it?

I advocated for what I thought was best for the city at large. I see nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This has cost taxpayers both the $100M original costs in direct payments and planning costs that were subsequently trashed in almost their entirety. There have been millions in other hidden costs as we have built parts of the original plan on a piecemeal basis, always at a much higher cost. We lost 10 years in getting LRT going in Ottawa when Phase 2 was going to be an east-west line anyways in the same time frame as has happened. What has been lost will never be recovered, both in costs and opportunity.

This is what I talk about when I mention your inability to see the challenges of the city as a whole. You see no downsides to the original plan not having a tunnel. You see nothing wrong with the first major rail project not expanding the rail network to new areas (as opposed to a lot of rebuilding of an existing corridor). You see nothing wrong with putting development and future ridership over current riders. Most of all, you don't seem at all concerned with the capacity issues the core was facing at the time, which should have been priority #1 for any transit plan. An argument to delay a solution is not a satisfactory argument to me....and apparently a lot of other voters in the city.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You can say all you want about how the Trillium Line should be upgraded, but that won't be happening, and there is a direct impact in the long-term on South Ottawa that you fail to understand. This is not about me personally. It is about my whole sector of the city. I don't understand why you use the 'selfish' label to invalidate my comments. It is an unfair representation. This forum needs comments from a broad range of perspectives.

Stage 2 is not what the Chiarelli LRT plan had in mind, but pretending the Trillium Line is not getting any upgrades at all is what costs you credibility in these debates. The South is still getting a hell of a lot more than Barrhaven or Kanata are. It's getting more than inner areas like Vanier. And just because it didn't deliver all of the Chiarelli plan, you are going to pretend there's no benefit at all?

I wanna to sit you and Uhuniau down face to face and have you tell him that you and your end of the city are more hard done by than his part of town.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My reading of your posts on here, is that you really struggle to see transit as an issue for the whole city, rather than just from the perspective of a south end resident.



I advocated for what I thought was best for the city at large. I see nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for.



This is what I talk about when I mention your inability to see the challenges of the city as a whole. You see no downsides to the original plan not having a tunnel. You see nothing wrong with the first major rail project not expanding the rail network to new areas (as opposed to a lot of rebuilding of an existing corridor). You see nothing wrong with putting development and future ridership over current riders. Most of all, you don't seem at all concerned with the capacity issues the core was facing at the time, which should have been priority #1 for any transit plan. An argument to delay a solution is not a satisfactory argument to me....and apparently a lot of other voters in the city.



Stage 2 is not what the Chiarelli LRT plan had in mind, but pretending the Trillium Line is not getting any upgrades at all is what costs you credibility in these debates. The South is still getting a hell of a lot more than Barrhaven or Kanata are. It's getting more than inner areas like Vanier. And just because it didn't deliver all of the Chiarelli plan, you are going to pretend there's no benefit at all?

I wanna to sit you and Uhuniau down face to face and have you tell him that you and your end of the city are more hard done by than his part of town.

Remember, I am expressing regret, not a demand.

I supported the N-S plan because it benefited the whole of the south part of the city that also lacked roads. At the time, we did not have the money to do anything more and the cost per km was very low for the population it was going to serve especially in the future. Those future development plans are not going to change. Bravo, that we have found much more money since then.

I did not necessarily support the whole of the Chiarelli plan but I must admit it was a much less downtown-centric plan than what the current plans will deliver over the next decades.

For those of us living inside the Greenbelt, Phase 2 of the Trillium Line offers very little benefit. We neither get a direct route to downtown nor improved frequency. It essentially remains the 'student' train to Carleton.

In one regard, we do clearly disagree. I did favour delivering transit early to new development as an experiment to see how it could influence design and transportation focus. There is a clear further advantage of delivering transit early as it costs much less to do so than trying to wedge it through existing development. Also, we can locate it for maximum benefit, whereas later building requires it to follow the 'available' corridor rather than the 'best' corridor.

I have said it many times, that the Chiarelli plan was flawed and it is for that reason, I have said for years that I support the downtown tunnel to the serve the city well as a whole. I talk about the Trillium Line much more often because it is much more flawed.

Please don't bring up Uhaniau. I have been quite supportive of inner city needs and I have spoken about that within the last week. Remember, that the Chiarelli plan included LRT on Montreal Road, something that should never be built unless there is at least exclusive lanes. Current plans offer nothing more than cycle tracks that will actually impede transit.

Yes, I advocate for South Ottawa but I also look at the picture as a whole too.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

6. The odour problem was obvious at Parliament station as soon as the doors opened and lingered for sometime inside the train. This should have been noticed and fixed before it opened to the public. This is unacceptable.

I was down in Parliament Station in mid-August and there was no smell then.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Redblacks tickets are a bar code whereas your fare ticket is either a FOB or a QR code. Plus the redblacks would have to coordinate any bar codes with OC Transpo.

In the past (and likely for the foreseeable future) the red vests will take a glance and open the door, just like every single time I've taken a bus with a ticket like that.

They've been working on the tickets for a while, and while they usually work there are some issues. The system is programmed to recognized the stadium ticket barcodes (the scanner doesn't care if it's 2D or 3D, it just spits out the data) but there are issues with the smaller events at Lansdowne that don't have the same barcoded ticketing that the stadium uses but still qualify for free transit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, but a station designed mainly for access to the rail station should be designed for ease of access. The UPX also had low ridership when it was opened but ease of access was emphasized and ridership has grown a lot since then.

Not the same thing. UPX ridership only went up after a massive fare cut (by half).

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tor...g-airport-express-train/article28839671/

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The old Transitway station was built 30 years ago at a time when rail ridership was falling and prospects looked poor. Times have now changed and rail ridership is increasing and the C-Train should make more people forgo taxis and Uber. As I said, retrofitting the station later will cost much more money. I understand that compromises are made to keep costs reasonable and this is one of those compromises.

I dunno if there were technical issues or not. But I wish this station was built with a centre platform with an escalator. Sort of an upscaled Cyrville if you will.... I am guessing two side platforms and two elevators were seen as cheaper. And I am going to guess that because there are two elevators, they decided that escalators weren't necessary. I sort of agree that it's more nice to have than must have, based on my experience using VIA and seeing how people use the old Transitway station. Hopefully, they have room to build them in the future as funding allows.

Broadly, annoying as it is, with how infrequently most people take VIA rail, not having an escalator is more an annoyance than a deterrent to actually getting to the VIA station by LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not the same thing. UPX ridership only went up after a massive fare cut (by half).

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tor...g-airport-express-train/article28839671/



I dunno if there were technical issues or not. But I wish this station was built with a centre platform with an escalator. Sort of an upscaled Cyrville if you will.... I am guessing two side platforms and two elevators were seen as cheaper. And I am going to guess that because there are two elevators, they decided that escalators weren't necessary. I sort of agree that it's more nice to have than must have, based on my experience using VIA and seeing how people use the old Transitway station. Hopefully, they have room to build them in the future as funding allows.

Broadly, annoying as it is, with how infrequently most people take VIA rail, not having an escalator is more an annoyance than a deterrent to actually getting to the VIA station by LRT.

Agreed. And I was aware that cutting fares for UPX was a major reason for ridership growth. Nevertheless, easy baggage handling on that line was critical since airport access was the main reason for those trains.

[lrt's friend]

In general, are we going to have enough elevators for those with mobility needs? Given the number of stairs involved at some stations, some people with moderate arthritis or other joint issues but don't need mobility devices yet may not be able to handle that many stairs even in the downward direction.

[GoTrans]

The only way to provide reasonable weather proof access to the Via station from Tremblay station is to build access from each of the LRT platforms down to a tunnel which would slope up to basically the same level of the LRT platforms but under the Via station or up to floor level in the Via station. The later option might not be realistic depending upon the slope required for the tunnel and the space available in the Via station but it would negate the need for escalators and elevators within the Via station. I would imagine that some of the space currently rented by the architectural firm would have to be used.Using this space would also shorten the length of tunnel and reduce costs.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In general, are we going to have enough elevators for those with mobility needs? Given the number of stairs involved at some stations, some people with moderate arthritis or other joint issues but don't need mobility devices yet may not be able to handle that many stairs even in the downward direction.

Two is more then the one they had before at the transitway stations, and the elevators are definitely larger. People in Montreal have to contend with 0 elevators generally, or stupid things like an elevator from platform to concourse at Bonaventure with no elevator access to street. Everytime I visit Montreal now that I have kids and luggage I curse....

At least on opening day, there didn't seem to be any large crowds waiting for elevators

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I have found the navigation to be mostly VERY intuitive - better than almost any other system I've been on. But yes, there are a few fails - need to start taking some notes.

Wait... Did you just say something POSITIVE about Ottawa?!?

Let's get the party started!

[lrt's friend]

And silence after a very insightful comment. We are partying like true Ottawans.