Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Riders blocking doors by not distributing throughout the train

Because of the rolling stock and layout they chose, the narrow aisles between the quad seats zones really limits how many people can stand there. And if they do stand there, it's very difficult for those sitting to disembark.

Originally Posted by CityTech

and people not getting up to walk to the doors ahead of their stop would both slow down flow massively.

Have you taken the train at peak? Doesn't sound like you have. It's not that people are taking their sweet time getting off. It's that the doors close on the flood of people getting off/on. Getting up and moving to the door does jack all to address this problem if there's a mass of people ahead of you wanting to exit too.

Originally Posted by CityTech

People in other cities don't have a problem with spreading out and getting up in advance, so there's no reason why these should be a problem here past some initial training periods.

Other cities don't buy trams for a metro system, equip them with front and rear facing seats, leading to narrow corridors and standing area only by the doors, and then launch with 12% fewer trains than what the engineers said was the minimum. We built a metro system on the cheap, and it's coming back to bite us in the ass.

In other cities, a system launching with 10 000 pphpd would not be using LRVs. They have metro/subway cars with more side-facing perimeter seating allowing people to spread out more throughout the train. Compare the seating layout on our Citadis LRVs to the layouts of subway cars in Toronto or Montreal and it immediately becomes obvious why it is easy for people to spread out more on those systems. Here's a great article on Vancouver exploring a change of seating layout. There's great pictures to show you the difference. I urge everyone to read that article. It'll become obvious why the layout OC Transpo/RTG chose is terrible for Ottawa's plan of using an LRV as a metro.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We needed to save money, so we didn't do this.

Same way we didn't shelter the entire platform on many surface stations, which will induce waiting passengers to shelter in the sheltered portion of the station, then board the sheltered portion of the train cars, leading to unbalanced distributions within the vehicle itself.

Have already seen it happening in light rain, imagine heavy downpours or winter storms.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In other cities, a system launching with 10 000 pphpd would not be using LRVs. They have metro/subway cars with more side-facing perimeter seating allowing people to spread out more throughout the train. Compare the seating layout on our Citadis LRVs to the layouts of subway cars in Toronto or Montreal and it immediately becomes obvious why it is easy for people to spread out more on those systems. Here's a great article on Vancouver exploring a change of seating layout. There's great pictures to show you the difference.

First time I saw the Citadis, when they had it at Lansdowne, its the first thing that came to mind, narrow isles, not enough standing room, its gonna be a bitch during rush hour. Wonder if there is any way to change the seating configuration at this point.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The 'lazy bum' trips are the bread and butter of Toronto's streetcars.

Precisely. You see a lot of it in peninsular Vancouver buses and trolleybuses as well. And this is what we need to be aiming for in the urban neighbourhoods of Ottawa, rather than chopping up urban bus routes into uselessly short lengths that connect to each other either in really stupid ways or not at all, all in the name of trying to force every bus passenger onto the LRT no matter what type of bus route or bus passenger they are.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Radster

First time I saw the Citadis, when they had it at Lansdowne, its the first thing that came to mind, narrow isles, not enough standing room, its gonna be a bitch during rush hour. Wonder if there is any way to change the seating configuration at this point.

Yep. I thought the same thing when the first pictures came out. I believe they simply chose a standard Alstom layout. No idea at all, if there was an option for more perimeter seating. They aren't as common on LRVs because more LRT operators aren't planning to use them to move 10 000 - 18 000 pphpd.

Relevant quote for those too lazy to read:

As well, perimeter seating generally provides more overall carrying capacity within each car with its allowance for greater standing room. This layout also creates more vertical and overhead handrails for standing passengers to hold on to.

With wider corridors between the seats, such a sideways seating layout could make the trains more efficient for quick ingress and egress through the car doors. This can be a challenge with the row-oriented forwards and backwards seating layouts, particularly during the busy peak hours when trains are crowded.

For these reasons, perimeter seating is primarily used in the train cars of the world’s busiest subway systems, including London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, and Seoul.

And while Ottawa isn't Toronto or London or New York, we are using a light rail vehicle as a subway system, something other cities don't do either.

[lrt's friend]

In other cities, a system launching with 10 000 pphpd would not be using LRVs. They have metro/subway cars with more side-facing perimeter seating allowing people to spread out more throughout the train. Compare the seating layout on our Citadis LRVs to the layouts of subway cars in Toronto or Montreal and it immediately becomes obvious why it is easy for people to spread out more on those systems. Here's a great article on Vancouver exploring a change of seating layout. There's great pictures to show you the difference. I urge everyone to read that article. It'll become obvious why the layout OC Transpo/RTG chose is terrible for Ottawa's plan of using an LRV as a metro.

That is a fair comment. However, this would have entailed higher costs for the project. Money we didn't have. There was a lot of cost cutting that went into this project that included eliminating a downtown station which would have spread out demand a little better. We bought on the cheap, and this is the consequence. Considering this is the trunk of an expanding system, it gets a little scary for the future when it seems that cramped, bad service is what we are told should be expected from now on. It seems that we underestimated the number of spare trains that are required, which was a serious miscalculation and of course, the 2 additional trains purchased are no where near ready to be put into service.

I totally agree, that additional trains would solve at least some of the problems.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Have you taken the train at peak? Doesn't sound like you have. It's not that people are taking their sweet time getting off. It's that the doors close on the flood of people getting off/on. Getting up and moving to the door does jack all to address this problem if there's a mass of people ahead of you wanting to exit too.

Exactly. What do some poodle expect passengers to do? "O, looks like I'm following 1/3 of the train's passengers off at uOttawa but the door is closing before I can leave so I'll just stay on until Rideau and walk back!"

Its not realistic, they need to increase dwell times and improve the doors, and ASAP.

P.S. I had to walk to downtown from Hurdman today. Not impressed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Except by catering to short trips you make it less convenient for long trips. Its more important to accommodate long trips.

Fun fact: this is false opposition.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is just wrong. If people are repeatedly making the same mistake, you have a human factors engineering problem, not a user problem. In this case, it's pretty damn obvious that dwell times at key downtown stations are insufficient, leading to users getting stuck in doors and then getting the doors jammed. What do you want riders to do, simply skip their stop? At that point, this system is unusable and people will stop taking transit.

It was pretty clear on the first Monday after launch, even with parallel bus service in operation, that U of O station was waaaaay busier than forecast.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

This way, it doesn't increase costs for regular transit riders (in fact, it offers the possibility for costs to be reduced), but still disincentivizes most walk/bike-replaceable trips and allows for anti-crowding peak pricing. The result is a system which costs less to ride, doesn't crowd as much, and runs more reliably. It's a bit of a cliché, but smart pricing really is a win-win all around.

I'd like to see a "cap" system as well, if only to solve my December problem (pay for a full month's pass; only use "two thirds" of it.)

But the solution to the U of O problem is to exempt students who live off-campus in Sandy Hill from the uPass program.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Fun fact: this is false opposition.

I am surprised by your mild response, when he was suggesting that suburban long distance travelers were to be given priority over short distance urban riders. In that regard, we need to serve our urban riders better than we have been.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because of the rolling stock and layout they chose, the narrow aisles between the quad seats zones really limits how many people can stand there. And if they do stand there, it's very difficult for those sitting to disembark.
Other cities don't buy trams for a metro system, equip them with front and rear facing seats, leading to narrow corridors and standing area only by the doors, and then launch with 12% fewer trains than what the engineers said was the minimum.

In other cities, a system launching with 10 000 pphpd would not be using LRVs. They have metro/subway cars with more side-facing perimeter seating allowing people to spread out more throughout the train. Compare the seating layout on our Citadis LRVs to the layouts of subway cars in Toronto or Montreal and it immediately becomes obvious why it is easy for people to spread out more on those systems. Here's a great article on Vancouver exploring a change of seating layout. There's great pictures to show you the difference. I urge everyone to read that article. It'll become obvious why the layout OC Transpo/RTG chose is terrible for Ottawa's plan of using an LRV as a metro.

I remember during the proposal phase (after it was determined we would get some kind of LRV, but before the mockup was built) there was some discussion around the seating arrangement. While it was understood perimeter seating allowed for better passenger loads and flow, the preference in Ottawa was for transverse seating as this was what people were used to and wanted. (I guess everyone assumed they would get a seat, "someone else" would stand?)

Originally Posted by Radster

First time I saw the Citadis, when they had it at Lansdowne, its the first thing that came to mind, narrow isles, not enough standing room, its gonna be a bitch during rush hour. Wonder if there is any way to change the seating configuration at this point.

Would be ideal to retrofit them, and going forward use more perimeter seating. It's not necessarily an LRV problem - for example San Diego's (also LRV) older fleet has similar layout (and issues) to ours, but newer ones (still LRV) now have a layout with more space:







Source: MTS

[lrt's friend]

I am seeing quite a few comments that connecting buses at Tunney's, Blair and Hurdman are running on a reduced 30 minute schedule during peak periods on many routes. You have to be kidding. How does this make for seamless travel?

[lrt's friend]

Has anybody heard any comments about Route 10 being cutback from the Rideau Centre to Lyon Station? A particularly stupid change in my opinion. A centretown bus route requiring use of the Confederation Line.

[lrt's friend]

Would be ideal to retrofit them, and going forward use more perimeter seating. It's not necessarily an LRV problem - for example San Diego's (also LRV) older fleet has similar layout (and issues) to ours, but newer ones (still LRV) now have a layout with more space:

There are still problems with the bars for standees on the San Diego design shown. No straps, limited numbers of vertical poles, something that you would expect on higher capacity trains.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are still problems with the bars for standees on the San Diego design shown. No straps, limited numbers of vertical poles, something that you would expect on higher capacity trains.

Those aluminum horizontal grab bars hanging from the ceiling look to be quite low actually, so I disagree,

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is poor economic analysis. Marginal utility. Econ 101. The pass becomes more valuable because it enables shorter, more discretionary trips. It's not folks who occasionally use transit, taking the LRT two stops or the bus a few blocks. It's people with a monthly pass. Whether you charge and cap (which is done on some GTA systems with Presto) or have a flat pass fare, makes little difference to this behaviour. Indeed, the entire point of charge and cap is to actually encourage transit usage by effectively giving "free" rides beyond normal commuting usage that pays for the pass.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that anyone who takes transit frequently will inevitably reach the cap and, knowing this at the start of the month, wouldn't modify their short trip-taking habits.

I actually don't disagree with this. But we're not dealing with the idealized economic man. A lot of people don't exactly know how many trips they'll make in a month. After all, the breakeven for a $120 transit pass is 17 round trips out of an average 20 work days/month. If there's one long weekend, one sick day, and one day when you take a different mode, you're below your breakeven. If you throw in off-peak pricing, then it's even more likely that you end up spending less than $120 in a month. So for most people, there's a very real possibility they won't get to their cap, and therefore every trip has a marginal added cost.

You'll note that I never claimed that short trips can/should be banned or done away with entirely. The fact that there is that very real possibility of saving a bit of money is likely to cause most people to make smart trip choices. Some people won't, and that's fine as long as that number is low enough to keep the overall system working well. After all, the difference between a busy bus line and a line slowed by overcrowding is a pretty small number since crowding is a non-linear phenomenon.

What transit has a problem with is not general usage, but usage at specific time periods. The normal solution to this is to charge a premium at peak. But that can only work if you have road tolls as well. Otherwise, you get substitution. Commuters will drive instead of taking the train. Have peak road tolls and transit fares and then your peak demand curve will actually get flattened.

I totally agree with congestion pricing. I think both should be implemented. However, I'm not sure if peak transit pricing would be enough to get people into their cars. After all, if we don't increase the peak cost and just reduce the off-peak cost, the price of transit at rush hour vs driving hasn't actually changed. So the calculation of "should I drive or take transit to work" hasn't budged.

Even if it were to increase to offset the cost of reducing off-peak fares, it may still be advantageous to ridership overall. Transit pricing is far more elastic in off-peak (-0.39) than at peak (-0.18). That means that a 30% increase in price at peak (to $4.5) will translate into a 5.4% decrease in transit ridership at peak, but a 30% cut in off-peak fares (to $2.45) would result in an 11.7% increase in ridership.

(Keep in mind that not all of that increase/decrease will come from driving - elasticity is likely to be higher for people who can walk/cycle and much lower for people who'd otherwise drive because the cost of driving remains much higher. Moreover, since the fare increase would also come with a fare decrease, a large number of people no longer travelling at peak are likely just taking transit 30 minutes earlier or later.)

Essentially, you're right that higher prices affect modal share. But that's much more the case off-peak than during the peak hours. Congestion pricing is a powerful and effective policy, but it isn't a precondition for peak transit pricing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

I remember during the proposal phase (after it was determined we would get some kind of LRV, but before the mockup was built) there was some discussion around the seating arrangement. While it was understood perimeter seating allowed for better passenger loads and flow, the preference in Ottawa was for transverse seating as this was what people were used to and wanted. (I guess everyone assumed they would get a seat, "someone else" would stand?)

Oooh. Yes. I actually vaguely remember this being brought up in one of the consultations I attended, now that you mention it. More specifically, I remember some Express Bus user asking about seating and being assured that they'd have enough. This is now looking a possible driver for their configuration decision.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Would be ideal to retrofit them, and going forward use more perimeter seating. It's not necessarily an LRV problem - for example San Diego's (also LRV) older fleet has similar layout (and issues) to ours, but newer ones (still LRV) now have a layout with more space:

I've actually used San Diego's trolley. You're absolutely right. Didn't occur to me. And we weren't on there at rush. But they are most definitely more spacious. Especially with the stroller we had with us.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are still problems with the bars for standees on the San Diego design shown. No straps, limited numbers of vertical poles, something that you would expect on higher capacity trains.

Originally Posted by Radster

Those aluminum horizontal grab bars hanging from the ceiling look to be quite low actually, so I disagree,

You're sort of both right. Vertical poles are better. But they aren't common in narrower trains between seating banquettes. So drop down handles are common. In my experience, this leads to self-sorting. The younger and more able bodied tend to roll into the aisles and the folks who need the vertical poles stay closer to the doors.

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

I remember during the proposal phase (after it was determined we would get some kind of LRV, but before the mockup was built) there was some discussion around the seating arrangement. While it was understood perimeter seating allowed for better passenger loads and flow, the preference in Ottawa was for transverse seating as this was what people were used to and wanted. (I guess everyone assumed they would get a seat, "someone else" would stand?)



Would be ideal to retrofit them, and going forward use more perimeter seating. It's not necessarily an LRV problem - for example San Diego's (also LRV) older fleet has similar layout (and issues) to ours, but newer ones (still LRV) now have a layout with more space:







Source: MTS

This would be a wise change. The narrowness in the 2by seating areas contributes to recent issues IMO.