Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think I'd reserve judgement on that for now.

That's still pretty worrying.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

The REM in Montréal is expected to face far, far worse issues than the Ottawa LRT.

Under designing by 10 000 pphpd. Holy crap. That's malpractice. They are found to end up with less ridership than what they had pre-REM.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

How OC Transpo missed its best chance to get us on board
At the very moment it needed to win fans, the Confederation Line failed spectacularly

Alistair Steele · CBC News
Posted: Oct 12, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 10 hours ago

They say you only get one chance to make a first impression, but really, OC Transpo had two.

The first came on Sept. 14, when the Confederation Line finally — finally — opened its gleaming doors to the public. (More on doors later.)

Thousands filed aboard that pleasant Saturday afternoon. Most had no particular place to go; they just wanted to play some small part in a historic day. From Tunney's Pasture to Blair and back again the bands played, the public art impressed and the train operators waved as they pulled up to the platforms.

Everyone, it seemed, was smiling.

OC Transpo's second chance at a first impression came Monday, when suburban commuters long accustomed to getting to work on trusty old bus routes like the 95 were suddenly forced to transfer onto the LRT to complete their journeys, whether they wanted to or not.

This was where the rubber was to meet the road, the first real test of what one OC Transpo manager dubbed "the biggest service change ever" for the public transit agency and its customers.

Things went OK on day one, but the following morning it all fell apart, and all it took was a single jammed door on a train at uOttawa station.

People crowded platforms up and down the line, waiting for trains that weren't coming, while buses continued to disgorge more passengers behind them. Ironically, it was the buses that saved the day, called back into service to ferry stranded commuters the rest of the way downtown.

If day two went badly, day three was worse. Two jammed doors at two different stations caused another delay, but this time, hundreds of passengers refused to board the backup buses.

At Tunney's Pasture, a steady stream of humanity filed down Scott Street, choosing the 3.5-kilometre walk downtown over OC Transpo. Others hailed a cab or summoned an Uber, whose customers gladly paid a hefty "surge price" that one driver said was the highest he'd ever seen.

Thursday brought another delay, but this time it wasn't a jammed door that ground the system to a halt.

According to a city memo, a train became immobilized at Bayview station when the onboard computer that runs its systems and subsystems failed and couldn't be reset. In other words, the brains of the operation stopped working, and no one really knows why.

That a passenger holding a door open can disable an entire LRT line for an hour or more is baffling. That a vital computer system failed mysteriously is probably worse. If it was your car, which problem would you rather take to the mechanic?

Here's something we do know: the chaos that marred this week's morning commutes has eroded the riding public's trust in the transit system, perhaps irrevocably.

That's happened because at the very moment it needed to win fans, the Confederation Line failed spectacularly. The only thing it proved was its unreliability.

"We just want to get to work," rider Fraser Smith told CBC on Thursday. For the third morning in a row, OC Transpo had failed to get the federal government employee from his home in Nepean to his office near Parliament station.

On Thursday, the bus that was supposed to drop him off at Tunney's Pasture just kept going downtown.

"I paid to use the train today, but I didn't get to use the train today," Smith said. "I know that right down the street I can park my car for 13 bucks a day."

He's not the only one with that idea, either. On Thursday morning, just four days into a transportation sea change that's supposed to transform the way this city moves, downtown streets were crammed with vehicles.

City councillors are taking notice. Coun. Catherine McKenney couldn't help it: from her kitchen window, she could see the throngs streaming down Albert Street on foot.

"People can't wonder if once a week, even once a month, that train's not going to get them into work, into school, back to pick up their kids from daycare," McKenney said.

"People will just continue to get more frustrated, and what I'm most worried about really is a decline in ridership."

She has reason to worry. OC Transpo ridership has been in gradual but steady decline since 2011, but the launch of the Confederation Line was supposed to be the catalyst that reversed that trend.

To say the future of transit in this city relied on things going smoothly this week is no wild overstatement.

"We need transit to work," Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower said Thursday. "When it breaks down, that erodes the trust, and it makes it so much more difficult for us to make some of the tough decisions that we need to around investments in transit and mobility in our city."

He's talking about Stage 2 LRT, and Stage 3 beyond that, projects that are supposed to transform "Autowa" into a thoroughly modern, multi-modal metropolis.

But that transformation demands trust, and this week that trust was broken. University students missed midterm exams. Schoolkids who were proud and excited to take the train by themselves had to call their parents to come pick them up. People with anxiety suffered panic attacks on crowded platforms.

Those of us who were dazzled by the Confederation Line on Sept. 14 are already looking for a way out.

A single photo, by Maclean's journalist Shannon Proudfoot, quickly emerged as an iconic image of this disastrous week. It shows a man, bag in hand, deftly vaulting a chain link fence at Tunney's Pasture station to escape the chaos.

If the city can't find a quick and lasting fix to the problems plaguing the Confederation Line and slowly restore the trust that's been lost this week, many more will jump that fence. OC Transpo's last chance to make a positive impression will have passed us by.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-failed-earn-trust-1.5318184

This is not a fan club type of thing. It is a question of practicality. Ridership may in fact decline a bit initially due to the problems but I predict it will eventually recover and even exceed historical levels eventually. Just watch.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is not a fan club type of thing. It is a question of practicality. Ridership may in fact decline a bit initially due to the problems but I predict it will eventually recover and even exceed historical levels eventually. Just watch.

I concur.

The fundamental opponent to the confederation line is parking downtown.

People may prefer to commute by private vehicle. Even pay the higher cost of fuel, insurance, depreciation and maintenance. But they still have to find somewhere to park.

[Kitchissippi]

While the Confederation Line's initial glitches have been disappointing, the real stupidity was implementing a massive service change that is overly reliant on it far too soon. They should just restore some of the Connexion routes into downtown until they iron all the kinks and are able to run 15 trains as promised.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

While the Confederation Line's initial glitches have been disappointing, the real stupidity was implementing a massive service change that is overly reliant on it far too soon. They should just restore some of the Connexion routes into downtown until they iron all the kinks and are able to run 15 trains as promised.

If they restore anything, it should be regular routes.

Once you restore one Connexion route, everyone's going to want their Connexion route to be restored.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

I concur.

The fundamental opponent to the confederation line is parking downtown.

People may prefer to commute by private vehicle. Even pay the higher cost of fuel, insurance, depreciation and maintenance. But they still have to find somewhere to park.

There's definitely not an excess of parking downtown. While it's still possible to find a space after 9 am, they are far and few between

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If they restore anything, it should be regular routes.

Once you restore one Connexion route, everyone's going to want their Connexion route to be restored.

If they're going to do this, they have to act fast. Have they started scrapping buses no longer needed after October 6 yet?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If they restore anything, it should be regular routes.

Once you restore one Connexion route, everyone's going to want their Connexion route to be restored.

It’s the Connexion routes creating too much of a rush hour load on to the line that’s causing a lot of issues, though. It’s also easier to shorten them when the train is more reliable. Maybe only restore the routes that are on stage 2 corridors, ie., west and southwest, and Orleans via 174. Or just do it in the AM.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It’s the Connexion routes creating too much of a rush hour load on to the line that’s causing a lot of issues, though. It’s also easier to shorten them when the train is more reliable. Maybe only restore the routes that are on stage 2 corridors, ie., west and southwest, and Orleans via 174. Or just do it in the AM.

If we are going to do this, I'd only restore them in the west, and only a few trips at the height of rush hour. Trips at the beginning of rush hour (say before 7:30) and at the end (say after 8:30) would continue to end at Tunney's. I'd also have them end at Slater & Metcalfe rather than continuing to the MC bridge.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It’s the Connexion routes creating too much of a rush hour load on to the line that’s causing a lot of issues, though. It’s also easier to shorten them when the train is more reliable. Maybe only restore the routes that are on stage 2 corridors, ie., west and southwest, and Orleans via 174. Or just do it in the AM.

Originally Posted by CityTech

If we are going to do this, I'd only restore them in the west, and only a few trips at the height of rush hour. Trips at the beginning of rush hour (say before 7:30) and at the end (say after 8:30) would continue to end at Tunney's. I'd also have them end at Slater & Metcalfe rather than continuing to the MC bridge.

Definitely only the buses in the height of the AM rush until they can get more trains online.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

That was exactly what I remember reading - users “expected” to have a seat, and might give up on transit if comfort was compromised, so that drove towards maximising seating despite impeding passenger flow and limiting space available for wheelchairs and bikes. I was sure I had seen an actual City report mentioning this (like a consultation summary) weighing these perspectives but alas can’t find it now.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Another example would be the 101. Why end it's replacement at Lees rather than Hurdman forcing people on 1 or 2 stop transfers (also would give a reasonable alternative when the train is down)

All transitway and connexion routes made sense to be replaced with the train (at least in the East, maybe more questionable in the West). But why did they decide to force non transitway users to make short hops on the train. Especially considering the depth of our stations.

As well, why end its replacement (55) at Bayshore rather than keeping its terminus at Carling Campus, forcing DND/CAF users on a transfer?

I suspect that there was actually some worry at some level that trains might not fill up, which would explain why so many routes that didn’t duplicate Line 1 were cancelled or were diverted to feed to an LRT station at the earliest opportunity. Now that we know there was actually no danger of empty trains, we should restore those crosstown routes that were never really replaced by Line 1. E.g., line 101/103 that east, central and south end residents relied on to get to Carling Campus.

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Really? That's ridiculous but not surprising. Would you mind sharing where you saw that?

It was also in the Sun, confirming that Chairperson Hubley drove on that first day:

Originally Posted by https://ottawasun.com/opinion/columnists/gibbons-oc-transpo-provides-fantastic-service-for-the-busy-rush-hour-commuter

8:33 a.m. There’s Coun. Allan Hubley, Transit Commission chair. He’s standing high above the platforms beaming at how well the transition of passengers is going. He’s a little worried it may not go as well when commuters test the system in reverse in the afternoon, he tells me. But overall, he’s impressed. He dashes to his car to avoid a parking ticket. What? The transit chair drove here?

I think the myriad deficiencies we’re seeing - everything like the doors, seating arrangement, passenger flows, cuts to bus routes, decreases in frequency because “there is sufficient capacity”, wayfinding and signage, etc - could have all been reasonably foreseen and prevented if more people in charge actually used transit daily. These are all things that a panel of regular users, and people with even a little experience with transit in other cities, could have pointed out and suggested reasonable alternatives.

(User groups like Ottawa Transit Riders seem like a potential help. Alas, I actually reached out to them for help with the reduction in service to Carling Campus, and to become a member but never heard back - not sure that they are well organised yet. All the more reason to sign up and help!)

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Definitely a problem with monthly passes. I'd advocate for moving towards a capped pass: Every tap of your presto costs $3.50 (and maybe $1 off-peak) until you hit $120, after which each additional ride is free until the end of the month.

One downside of monthly capping is losing the steady monthly revenue from passes. I think a better approach would be daily capping: with a Presto card, you would max out at the cost of a day pass. That way OC would still get monthly revenue from passes, and warrant continuing the UPass programmes, and would also incentivise those occasional users who’d consider using transit for a day rather than driving. This is how it works on the London Underground, for example.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree that as a permanent station, Hurdman's bus loop should have been better designed to offer coverage from the elements and heat. The platform should also have been wider.

I think the bus loop should have been closer to the elevated tracks, so that the overhead structure (maybe with additional overhangs) could have doubled as coverage for bus users.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At Hurdman, the Kiss n Ride and walk in access should not get better access to the station than the vast majority who are doing bus transfers.

Agreed. I don’t know how much use the kiss and ride gets, but I suspect it would be more useful to reassign that space for rail/bus transfers (e.g., for buses to/from east of Hurdman). I think the speed benefit of the fare-paid zone is much less than the accessibility improvement of a shorter walk to transfer... though if they really needed to keep a fare-paid zone, they could set up the turnstiles in a shelter closer the Alta Vista entrance, like they have at the northwest end of Tunney’s near the DND building.

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

I find it annoying that stops A and B, the two spots closets to the LRT stairs are rarely used. One is reserved for overnight service while the other is for R1 buses. I understand that before this week these stops were being used for buses travelling towards downtown but now that those buses are not operating, the stops should be realigned.

I suspect that keeping stop A at Hurdman for night buses only keeps it available as overflow for all the drop offs at stop B during the day.

Whereas at Tunney’s, during the rush I’ve noticed that buses don’t drop off at the station, but rather drive on to the corresponding bus stop because the area in front of the station itself is too short to accommodate all the disembarking passengers. Which in the afternoons, collides with the crush of people on the too-narrow north sidewalk. (Again, removing the door would help a lot in improving passenger flow.)

In fact Tunney’s often gets backed up with buses in the afternoon that connecting routes (e.g., 11, 80, 86, 89) are stuck on Scott St trying to get in. It can be faster to get off at Holland Cross and walk to the station than to stay on.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think I'd reserve judgement on that for now.

Exactly. The incentives in Montreal's REM are lined up with the public. They basically get a subsidy per passenger along with revenue so will want as many people as possible. Some riders might want nice empty trains but as a whole we want it as busy as possible. Frankly we can't afford trains that aren't full to the brim at rush hour. Or if we can afford it we don't want to pay for it.
Will it have proper doors TBD.

[kmcamp]

I was thinking the other day while going up the long escalator at Rideau and I'm glad they tossed the original super deep tunnel plan. Can you imagine having to go down a second escalator like that right afterwards? It's already deep enough that it's a bit inconvenient.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It isn't that simple. The stops need to be arranged by neighbourhoods. You can't have a regular route at stop A, then the Connexion route serving the same or similar area at stop F

I don't know if it's the case with all suburban routes, but our neighborhood Frequent route (35) does not run when the equivalent Connexion route (235) is running (in the rush hour direction).

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It doesn't bode well for Montreal's REM considering it will be using the exact same trains. But that's for Montrealers to worry about

It's like Metrolinx using the same Alstom Citadis Spirits for Hurontario and Finch projects. I figure we (and Sydney) are the test markets and kinks will be ironed-out on further orders. That said, is the Sydney train the exact same as the REM? Wouldn't REM be built for winter, as was the Spirit, so a brand new model as well? At least Metrolinx and REM lines won't be their respective city's trunk line. These problems are a bigger deal in Ottawa and Sydney.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Recent Skytrain extensions are just using what already works for them. The last brand new automation in Canada was Edmonton's metro line, which is still a disaster years later.

Where there any issues when Skytrain opened in 86?

As for Edmonton, the issue was that the new automated system was not compatible with the old block system of Capital or non-grade separated service. That's kind of a Phoenix Pay System fail; wrong technology for what you're trying to do.

Originally Posted by CityTech

If we are going to do this, I'd only restore them in the west, and only a few trips at the height of rush hour. Trips at the beginning of rush hour (say before 7:30) and at the end (say after 8:30) would continue to end at Tunney's. I'd also have them end at Slater & Metcalfe rather than continuing to the MC bridge.

Since the entire Confederation project is geared towards suburban commuters, I would restore all inner-greenbelt, non Transitway routes to their previous direct to downtown routing. Let's not pretend the line was built for urban commuters. Continue to make all suburbanites transfer since they are the ones who will see improvements in the future.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

That was exactly what I remember reading - users “expected” to have a seat, and might give up on transit if comfort was compromised, so that drove towards maximising seating despite impeding passenger flow and limiting space available for wheelchairs and bikes. I was sure I had seen an actual City report mentioning this (like a consultation summary) weighing these perspectives but alas can’t find it now.

Sounds about right. According to Wikipedia, the max capacity of a 48 meter car is 340 while ours is configured for 300.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I was thinking the other day while going up the long escalator at Rideau and I'm glad they tossed the original super deep tunnel plan. Can you imagine having to go down a second escalator like that right afterwards? It's already deep enough that it's a bit inconvenient.

Agreed. The Market entrance is even worse since we have 4 short escalators to take down to the concourse. Dramatic difference with the similar Lyon entrance where Glue Pot was located.

[J.OT13]

I've started reading the articles regarding the REM's capacity and so far, they seem alarmist. Just more groups who are trying to discredit light-metros in favour of streetcars.

Analysis of the "Le Reflet" article.

Cost

The "study" criticizes the high cost of the elevated and underground sections however, this is still far more economical than Montréal's tradition of building fully underground subways. In fact, the REM is the cheapest fully grade separated rapid transit project in Canada per kilometer.

Capacity

Park and rides will be full. As they should be. No use in building parking lots larger than what they need to be. We don't want everyone to drive to the rail stations. As long as suburban stations are fed by a solid bus service, it's a win.

The "Skytrain" technology is not limited in length. Vancouver and Montréal (through CDPQ) have chosen the length based on there need. The lack of drivers increases capacity significantly. Ottawa's trains have the same capacity with 20 extra meters because we have 4 driver cabs. Ultimate might be higher due to the 120 meter platforms downtown. "Skytrain" technology results in equal capacity with shorter trains and platforms.

Capacity of 600 with "theoretical" capacity of 780 is, I agree, ridiculous. 780 is likely a crush load that is beyond anything that could be considered acceptable.

As for the idea that the capacity will be at its max from day one, that's just incorrect. Initially, the trains will pass every 2.5 minutes, while automated metros can be as frequent as 1.5 minutes, easy. That's a 60% increase. I don't know what AMT's capacity is/was, but the level of service is far superior with REM.

Light-Metro vs Tramway

This is a subject that comes up over and over. Tramways encourage local travel. You know what else does that? Buses. For much, much cheaper.

Had they built a Tramway instead of the REM, the line could not have been 67 kilometers. Capacity would have been much lower. It would have been vulnerable to Montréal's crazy traffic woes and accidents. This project is not about local travel but getting the masses to Montréal and back quickly and efficiently. It's about reducing pressure on the Métro. About reducing congestion, not adding to it. It's also about better access to the airport from all over the metropolitan area.

https://www.lereflet.qc.ca/etude-remet-question-pertinence-rem/

[eltodesukane]

Strange how Montreal seems to be going full speed ahead as if money is no object
(Champlain Bridge, Turcot interchange, highway 20, Ville-Marie Expressway, REM from Brossard to Ste Anne de Bellevue, Blue line Anjou extension, Orange line Laval loop, Pink Line, …)
while Toronto keeps on thinking about a future one stop metro to Scarborough, or an eventual Downtown Relief Line.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I've started reading the articles regarding the REM's capacity and so far, they seem alarmist. Just more groups who are trying to discredit light-metros in favour of streetcars.

Analysis of the "Le Reflet" article.

Cost

The "study" criticizes the high cost of the elevated and underground sections however, this is still far more economical than Montréal's tradition of building fully underground subways. In fact, the REM is the cheapest fully grade separated rapid transit project in Canada per kilometer.

Capacity

Park and rides will be full. As they should be. No use in building parking lots larger than what they need to be. We don't want everyone to drive to the rail stations. As long as suburban stations are fed by a solid bus service, it's a win.

The "Skytrain" technology is not limited in length. Vancouver and Montréal (through CDPQ) have chosen the length based on there need. The lack of drivers increases capacity significantly. Ottawa's trains have the same capacity with 20 extra meters because we have 4 driver cabs. Ultimate might be higher due to the 120 meter platforms downtown. "Skytrain" technology results in equal capacity with shorter trains and platforms.

Capacity of 600 with "theoretical" capacity of 780 is, I agree, ridiculous. 780 is likely a crush load that is beyond anything that could be considered acceptable.

As for the idea that the capacity will be at its max from day one, that's just incorrect. Initially, the trains will pass every 2.5 minutes, while automated metros can be as frequent as 1.5 minutes, easy. That's a 60% increase. I don't know what AMT's capacity is/was, but the level of service is far superior with REM.

Light-Metro vs Tramway

This is a subject that comes up over and over. Tramways encourage local travel. You know what else does that? Buses. For much, much cheaper.

Had they built a Tramway instead of the REM, the line could not have been 67 kilometers. Capacity would have been much lower. It would have been vulnerable to Montréal's crazy traffic woes and accidents. This project is not about local travel but getting the masses to Montréal and back quickly and efficiently. It's about reducing pressure on the Métro. About reducing congestion, not adding to it. It's also about better access to the airport from all over the metropolitan area.

https://www.lereflet.qc.ca/etude-remet-question-pertinence-rem/

90 second headway is really hard to do, the closest is 108-110 seconds done in Vancouver. There's an over reliance on frequency in recent lines to make up for shorter trains and rely on automation to achieve it. They do this because it's the cheapest option to achieve high capacities. But it means everything has to run exactly like clockwork, the moment something happens to knock stuff off schedule, as happened to us last week the whole thing falls into chaos. There's no slack in the system to handle a fault gracefully, and passengers aren't robots so a lot of human caused delays will occur. The REM will have some mighty spectacular bad days, more so than we experienced last week. On good days though it will all be fine.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is a subject that comes up over and over. Tramways encourage local travel. You know what else does that? Buses. For much, much cheaper.

Buses don't do that unless they are frequent (Ottawa's aren't), faster than ambient traffic (ditto), and reliable (ditto.)

Bus routes also don't induce development patterns like fixed rail transit does, and especially not in Ottawa where we will happily contort our bus routes like a piece of silly putty to provide service to poorly-located and poorly-designed public facilities and heavily subsidize those bad "coverage" services, rather than locating and designing things along existing transit routes in the first place.

Buses have their place: in the suburbs, mostly. Ottawa's urban mainstreets and older neighbourhoods are going to suffer, and badly, if we rebuild the city around a suburban-oriented light metro, yet insist that diesel buses are the transit solution for both older urban areas that have high transit demand and transit support, and for postwar suburban dormitory communities.

The suffering is going to be swifter and more complete if we insist, as OC Transpo has been moving towards for the last decade, on having local bus transit service levels in the urban area that are no better than they are in Orleans.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't know if it's the case with all suburban routes, but our neighborhood Frequent route (35) does not run when the equivalent Connexion route (235) is running (in the rush hour direction).



It's like Metrolinx using the same Alstom Citadis Spirits for Hurontario and Finch projects. I figure we (and Sydney) are the test markets and kinks will be ironed-out on further orders. That said, is the Sydney train the exact same as the REM? Wouldn't REM be built for winter, as was the Spirit, so a brand new model as well? At least Metrolinx and REM lines won't be their respective city's trunk line. These problems are a bigger deal in Ottawa and Sydney.



Where there any issues when Skytrain opened in 86?

As for Edmonton, the issue was that the new automated system was not compatible with the old block system of Capital or non-grade separated service. That's kind of a Phoenix Pay System fail; wrong technology for what you're trying to do.



Since the entire Confederation project is geared towards suburban commuters, I would restore all inner-greenbelt, non Transitway routes to their previous direct to downtown routing. Let's not pretend the line was built for urban commuters. Continue to make all suburbanites transfer since they are the ones who will see improvements in the future.



Sounds about right. According to Wikipedia, the max capacity of a 48 meter car is 340 while ours is configured for 300.



Agreed. The Market entrance is even worse since we have 4 short escalators to take down to the concourse. Dramatic difference with the similar Lyon entrance where Glue Pot was located.

Skytrain had at least one year of real tething problems. They had to work to make it a good system. Hopefully OTC works on the problems like Vancouver instead of like Toronto on the Scarborough line.