Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some times they do, sometimes they don't in my experience. There is no policy on this so if they do it's just a courtesy.

Automated stop announcements on STO are in French only. As are electronic sign displays.

That is fine and all automated messages on OC Transpo should be billingual. But spur of the moment announcements? Sure, if the driver has the confidence to present the message in both languages easily and quickly. As I said, we are getting too picky.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That is fine and all automated messages on OC Transpo should be billingual. But spur of the moment announcements? Sure, if the driver has the confidence to present the message in both languages easily and quickly. As I said, we are getting too picky.

Well we are either bilingual or we aren't. This unilingual francophone is lot more likely to understand next stop and the name than an announcement they must exit and do something unexpected.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That is fine and all automated messages on OC Transpo should be billingual. But spur of the moment announcements? Sure, if the driver has the confidence to present the message in both languages easily and quickly. As I said, we are getting too picky.

For the record, I was not complaining.

I never complain about French being lacking in Ottawa. That's why I live in Gatineau.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For the record, I was not complaining.

I never complain about French being lacking in Ottawa. That's why I live in Gatineau.

I understood that.

[TransitZilla]

According to new memo from Watson and Hubley, $2.9M to be deducted from October RTM payment as a result of service interruptions.

Also announcing extra bus frequency starting next week.

https://www.otrainfans.ca/news/statement...allan-hubley-regarding-recent-lrt-issues

[daud]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

According to new memo from Watson and Hubley, $2.9M to be deducted from October RTM payment as a result of service interruptions.

Also announcing extra bus frequency starting next week.

https://www.otrainfans.ca/news/statement...allan-hubley-regarding-recent-lrt-issues

its a start.

I know nothing about how the overall system works but was thinking that the October 6 changeover of service seems to be when things really went off the rails (pardon the pun). I think they should have slowly staggered the new service into use. First phase parallel service, second phase, roll in 33% of volume from buses to the train, third phase another 33% etc.. I know hindsight is 20/20 but...

I also continue to worry about how this line will accommodate growth in ridership in the future.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by daud

its a start.

I know nothing about how the overall system works but was thinking that the October 6 changeover of service seems to be when things really went off the rails (pardon the pun). I think they should have slowly staggered the new service into use. First phase parallel service, second phase, roll in 33% of volume from buses to the train, third phase another 33% etc.. I know hindsight is 20/20 but...

You're probably right.

Extra frequency on some busy routes is good news, but I was a bit surpised the announcement didn't include something like running the R1 every day during peak periods to take some load of the trains and have a ready backup.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Are we getting this picky? Do operators on STO also make all announcements in both languages?

In my experience, quite often yes they do.

[adam-machiavelli]

None of these problems surprise me given the new system was designed without any redundancies. Looks like Ottawa will need a downtown relief line like....now.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

None of these problems surprise me given the new system was designed without any redundancies. Looks like Ottawa will need a downtown relief line like....now.

And we could have had it already running. Now, it looks impossible. We put all our eggs in one basket, and oops, there goes the basket.

I expect they will resolve many of the problems but we will never achieve 100% train reliability, so the problems will continue fairly frequently. In cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, there continue to many parallel bus, trolley and streetcar routes running into downtown, usually very frequently.

We need a plan for long-term redundancy in some form. For example, return the old Route 85 Carling to run on its former route via Bronson to downtown. Why not combine Route 9 and 10 as a big circle route? Eliminate nuisance short distance transfers in downtown on local routes, which are designed to frustrate users and force longer walks. Boost frequency on downtown routes so they can be real alternatives. There are probably others.

I have already mentioned that City Hall is now in a transit desert. There is no need for this. There should be frequent bus routes crisscrossing downtown in every direction. Instead, our remaining bus routes are disjointed and have questionable frequency. I have seen bus routes which used to run on a 10 minute frequency fade to 12 minute then 15 minute then 20 minute and now 30 minute frequency. All justifiable no doubt in the accountants minds but resulting in continuous ridership loss, while we continue with infill projects needing ample parking because of poor transit, even in central neighbourhoods.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by daud

I also continue to worry about how this line will accommodate growth in ridership in the future.

Capacity can be increased in two ways.

First, trains can be run at more frequent intervals than the current 3 minutes. In theory minimum spacing could have trains every 90 seconds which would double capacity. In reality 120 seconds is normally used as the upper limit which would add 50% to the capacity of the system (ref). This requires additional trains in the system (we already went from 13 trains to 14 in October to better match capacity with demand and we have a 15th train in reserve).

Secondly, each car can be expanded by adding another intermediate module into them. This increases capacity per car by 70 people (140 per train), a 23% increase. Car length increases by 35 feet. The underground platforms have already been built with this additional 70 feet in length while the above ground platforms are designed so that they can be extended by an extra 70 feet in the future.

Combining extra trains on a more frequent schedule with an additional module per car gives a theoretical increase of almost two and a half times the current capacity.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And we could have had it already running. Now, it looks impossible. We put all our eggs in one basket, and oops, there goes the basket.

I expect they will resolve many of the problems but we will never achieve 100% train reliability, so the problems will continue fairly frequently. In cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, there continue to many parallel bus, trolley and streetcar routes running into downtown, usually very frequently.

We need a plan for long-term redundancy in some form. For example, return the old Route 85 Carling to run on its former route via Bronson to downtown. Why not combine Route 9 and 10 as a big circle route? Eliminate nuisance short distance transfers in downtown on local routes, which are designed to frustrate users and force longer walks. Boost frequency on downtown routes so they can be real alternatives. There are probably others.

I have already mentioned that City Hall is now in a transit desert. There is no need for this. There should be frequent bus routes crisscrossing downtown in every direction. Instead, our remaining bus routes are disjointed and have questionable frequency. I have seen bus routes which used to run on a 10 minute frequency fade to 12 minute then 15 minute then 20 minute and now 30 minute frequency. All justifiable no doubt in the accountants minds but resulting in continuous ridership loss, while we continue with infill projects needing ample parking because of poor transit, even in central neighbourhoods.

I'd rather they increase the frequency of route 16 from every 30 minutes to every 4 minutes to provide some redundancy in downtown. Every other urban route needs to have increased in frequency as well but the only change in routes should be done to the overnight ones by re-conbining them back to the way the were

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

I'd rather they increase the frequency of route 16 from every 30 minutes to every 4 minutes to provide some redundancy in downtown. Every other urban route needs to have increased in frequency as well but the only change in routes should be done to the overnight ones by re-conbining them back to the way the were

TLDR: during outages, the 16 becomes unreliable.

During a late peak to mid-morning outage a few weeks ago, I met my daughter at Tunney's to bus back to my place with her after what was a horrendous trip of Bus, R1, and Train delays, with a baby in carrier and a toddler walking. In a way she was glad she didn't have to wrangle a double stroller onto the extra bus but she was exhausted and I was happy to offer an extra set of hands for the last leg.

The 16 to my house never came. Well, it came, but the driver waved us off and pulled into the lay-by area at Tunneys. Our bus was cancelled entirely, making it a 40 minute wait for the transfer.

I insisted we take a bus down Scott and walk the three blocks to my place. I figured it took as much energy to stand until the local bus came as it would to walk.

My round trip from home to Tunney's (a 5 minute bus ride) was an hour in total including the extra walk, but that included the time waiting for her train since the system was single tracked and things were running really slowly. I'm not sure if a 16 home came during my wait for her train.

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well we are either bilingual or we aren't. This unilingual francophone is lot more likely to understand next stop and the name than an announcement they must exit and do something unexpected.

I agree.

One thing about bilingual announcements is that some of our immigrants speak a little French, but no English, because of previous colonial rule. So they would have a clue what is happening if announcements were in both languages. The same is true for tourists to this city.

As a traveler, I've been caught on subway systems during interruptions and have no clue what is happening, resorting to simply following the crowds and hoping for the best. In each case, I was in a country where expecting English was not reasonable. But it is scary. Since we are an officially bilingual city, we should be able to make announcements in both languages.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Charles5

(we already went from 13 trains to 14 in October to better match capacity with demand and we have a 15th train in reserve).

Do we know that the 14th train was already added? Councillor Menard said it would be coming, but I don’t know if anyone has said that it has started yet. I suspect we’ll find out Wednesday.

[NOWINYOW]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

According to new memo from Watson and Hubley, $2.9M to be deducted from October RTM payment as a result of service interruptions.

Also announcing extra bus frequency starting next week.

https://www.otrainfans.ca/news/statement...allan-hubley-regarding-recent-lrt-issues

Looking at the routes that will see increased capacity, none of them go into the downtown core, but rather stop at Tunney's or Blair. While that's great for those that finally get to those stations, the bottleneck is getting people into and out from, the downtown core. Perhaps it's time to bring back, at least for a period of time, an old route 95 starting at Tunneys and ending at Blair. That will take some of the pressure off the trains and get people to and from the core.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

Looking at the routes that will see increased capacity, none of them go into the downtown core, but rather stop at Tunney's or Blair. While that's great for those that finally get to those stations, the bottleneck is getting people into and out from, the downtown core. Perhaps it's time to bring back, at least for a period of time, an old route 95 starting at Tunneys and ending at Blair. That will take some of the pressure off the trains and get people to and from the core.

That is simply creating an R1 route by another name on a permanent basis.

The issues concerning the Confederation line are not about capacity but rather about reliability. Creating a parallel system will simply add unnecessary surplus capacity at extra cost. When the LRT is running properly that extra capacity is not required and is a waste of money. When the LRT fails, that extra capacity will be insufficient to meet the demand regardless and thus defeats the purpose.

Creating a parallel system may make people feel better, but doesn't really solve any problems and increase costs.

The solutions to the problems we have are to work to increase the reliability of the LRT system overall. And when there are problems the response needs to be targeted specifically to the problem areas exactly as OC Transpo is currently doing. That is to single line the LRT around a problem area; add R1 buses to shuttle people around the problem; and if necessary extend the routes of some buses like the 200 series.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Do we know that the 14th train was already added? Councillor Menard said it would be coming, but I don’t know if anyone has said that it has started yet. I suspect we’ll find out Wednesday.

Given the rate of failures, I think they need all 4 spares at the moment, so I don't think the 14th has been consistently added.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Charles5

That is simply creating an R1 route by another name on a permanent basis.

The issues concerning the Confederation line are not about capacity but rather about reliability. Creating a parallel system will simply add unnecessary surplus capacity at extra cost. When the LRT is running properly that extra capacity is not required and is a waste of money. When the LRT fails, that extra capacity will be insufficient to meet the demand regardless and thus defeats the purpose.

Creating a parallel system may make people feel better, but doesn't really solve any problems and increase costs.

The solutions to the problems we have are to work to increase the reliability of the LRT system overall. And when there are problems the response needs to be targeted specifically to the problem areas exactly as OC Transpo is currently doing. That is to single line the LRT around a problem area; add R1 buses to shuttle people around the problem; and if necessary extend the routes of some buses like the 200 series.

Parallel R1 service would be overkill, but it wasn't necessary to make the network discontinuous without a trip on the LRT. We should have continued to have all bus routes downtown meet at a central transfer point, rather than requiring a silly (and time consuming considering the depth of the stations) transfer onto the LRT for a 400m distance between the 10 and 11 for example. They could have made Parliament the central transfer if they must, or the war monument, but it's silly. This pattern is repeated all over, the LRT is and should be a trunk route, but it's not necessary to route every single trip via it.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Parallel R1 service would be overkill, but it wasn't necessary to make the network discontinuous without a trip on the LRT. We should have continued to have all bus routes downtown meet at a central transfer point, rather than requiring a silly (and time consuming considering the depth of the stations) transfer onto the LRT for a 400m distance between the 10 and 11 for example. They could have made Parliament the central transfer if they must, or the war monument, but it's silly. This pattern is repeated all over, the LRT is and should be a trunk route, but it's not necessary to route every single trip via it.

Well, considering the 10 comes into the west part of downtown (Lyon) from the south, and the 11 comes in from the West and ends up in the east part (Parliament), it seems highly unlikely that anyone would ever make that connection. If you do need to transfer between those two lines, simply make that transfer where the two routes cross over each other at Somerset and Bronson.

The system you're suggesting where all routes go into downtown would do nothing to alleviate congestion on the roads, and would in essence still create a parallel system to the LRT, albeit with a transfer point.

A transit network cannot cater to any and all potential journeys. It has to balance moving a lot of people as efficiently as possible along major commuting pathways while at the same time providing those basic essential services where ridership is limited.