2023 Transportation Master Plan

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

Which shows the importance of keeping dedicated right of ways for future transit infrastructure empty like we do in Ottawa.

Saving the ROWs is great. But it isn't just the ROWs. Much as everyone likes to bitch and moan, our planners have done an amazing job using highway corridors where possible (Orleans) and using old ROWs to build grade separated portions for cheaper (Byron Linear Corridor).

I don't think people will fully understand/grasp it till Confederation West opens in 2025. But in about a decade and a half, give or take, Ottawa will have gone from the old dinky 5-stop O-Train to massive network that covers most residents with a decent level of rail service.

The network beyond 2025 will enable some crazy commutes. It'll be possible to get to work in Kanata from Orleans in 1.5 hrs door-to-door, almost competitive with a car at peak. And definitely competitive with a cark peak for any downtown bound commuters.

I think we should be proud and toot our horns a bit more about what we're building in this town.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

With Trillium it was sort of understandable because they were constrained by costs. Higher frequencies would require double tracking, which would substantially increase capital costs, possibly pushing upgrades and extensions to a later phase.

What's inexcusable is building a line capable of high frequencies and then running trains every 15 min because you can't figure out how to uncouple two LRTs.


As you point out, for some reason we chose to build a metro system around trams and not have climate controlled stations, when we could have easily built a fully automated, climate controlled light metro like REM. But that aside, I don't think being middle of the pack of losers is a great defence. This kind of service off-peak is poor for transit users. We have nothing to learn from them on this front and we need to build a transit system that works for us. And 15 min frequencies on the branches off-peak doesn't work.

Maybe they should buy a few more LRVs and leave them uncoupled to run as the night time fleet if they are too incompetent to figure out how to uncouple the LRVs. That way they can ensure 10 mins frequencies on the branches at night.

I've heard a few reasons for why they're leaving them coupled, but none of them were related to frequency. You can bet that if they were uncoupled, they would still run the same frequency, even at every 15 minutes they weren't full pre-pandemic.

The uncoupling is an odd one. Because of the design of the trains, it has to be done in the yard, they need to install a fibreglass cap over the coupler which doesn't just fold away like it does on some others. This is an operational headache. I've also heard that having two trains provides redundancy - the computers are linked and redundant, and if one train fails the other is right there to push/pull it off the line.

From what I heard these decisions were RTM driven, not OC Transpo. So long as OC doesn't have to pay for it, the marginal cost of running doubles is low so they are OK with it.

[OCCheetos]

The reasoning listed in the notice of default is that the onboard computers that control passenger-related things like doors and signage are prone to failure, but with a coupled pair one of the trains can take over if the other fails.

For operating, I can't see why they need the nose cons, other than aesthetics.

And for towing a train out of service, I don't know if they can do that. Maybe this case was different, but not too long ago they sent a full coupled train to Tunney's to tow a full coupled train back to the yard because it was dead. There was a video of it on Twitter (which I can try to find again later).

[sseguin]

Haha I was the one that posted the video. Here it is :
https://twitter.com/railfanscanada/status/1332036585668403200?s=21

I still can’t believe that actually was done. Quite impressive and unique to see 4 units all coupled together as they were.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I've heard a few reasons for why they're leaving them coupled, but none of them were related to frequency. You can bet that if they were uncoupled, they would still run the same frequency, even at every 15 minutes they weren't full pre-pandemic.

...

From what I heard these decisions were RTM driven, not OC Transpo. So long as OC doesn't have to pay for it, the marginal cost of running doubles is low so they are OK with it.

Well, I guess we can blame OC Transpo for requiring 15 min service then?

In any event, you can't call it Rapid Transit when you have to wait 15 mins before you even start your trip. Effectively, they are suggesting that anybody travelling to/from Nepean, Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville late at night should drive or cab if they can afford it....

And these branches aren't even that long!

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The network beyond 2025 will enable some crazy commutes. It'll be possible to get to work in Kanata from Orleans in 1.5 hrs door-to-door, almost competitive with a car at peak.

Say Whut? 45 minutes at peak is the commute time, I know I do this... unless its raining

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Say Whut? 45 minutes at peak is the commute time, I know I do this... unless its raining

That seems reasonable. But, just like Phase 1, we are being prepared to have some very low expectations. The cost of rail makes it impossible to address the last mile problem at each end. Many local buses will run every 30 minutes even during peak periods. Train-bus transfers can be brutal and I have experienced 30 minute waits a number of times.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That seems reasonable. But, just like Phase 1, we are being prepared to have some very low expectations. The cost of rail makes it impossible to address the last mile problem at each end. Many local buses will run every 30 minutes even during peak periods. Train-bus transfers can be brutal and I have experienced 30 minute waits a number of times.

I agree, train-bus transfers can be brutal. I experienced this every day on my work commute (before the pandemic). Timing had to be perfect to make my bus connection at Tunney's station. The train was awesome in terms of predictability and frequency in the first part of my commute so it often worked out but if I was running a few minutes behind, I was stuck waiting for 30 minutes for a bus to the office. And even if my timing was correct, I did experience busses leaving a few minutes early or arriving at the station 15-20 minutes late due to delays elsewhere. I honestly love the O-Train, I use it a lot, it has worked really well for me since opening. It's the train-bus transfers that really diminish the experience/mobility for me.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Say Whut? 45 minutes at peak is the commute time, I know I do this... unless its raining

I was including bus rides at either end of the train ride.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was including bus rides at either end of the train ride.

Yeah but car if car is 45 minutes, 1.5 hours is not "competitive"

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Yeah but car if car is 45 minutes, 1.5 hours is not "competitive"

Let's see what traffic is like in a few years from now, without Covid.

Also, competitive means somewhat close. Doesn't have to be faster. Let's not forget the cost difference between transit fare and a car. Not to mention the cost of parking. Free parking is after all increasingly a taxable benefit.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's see what traffic is like in a few years from now, without Covid.

Also, competitive means somewhat close. Doesn't have to be faster. Let's not forget the cost difference between transit fare and a car. Not to mention the cost of parking. Free parking is after all increasingly a taxable benefit.

Convenience is the key here. The only way transit will ever be competitive with driving is if you could access a reasonable amount of destinations, in a reasonable time frame, at a reasonable cost.

As it stands, our transit system doesn't really meet any of these criteria except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. you live walking distance to the Confederation Line).

I think the city has done an admirable job at getting commuters onto transit and out of cars so far. However, there definitely needs to be improvements to increase ridership for non-commuting trips.

[Truenorth00]

Agreed. Which is why there needs to be far more of a focus on bus service. Yet this forum is obsessed with putting a subway under any Avenue that had more than a dozen multi-storey buildings.

This video on comparing various American cities and Toronto's transit system could apply to Ottawa too:

• Video Link

[Baybreeze12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Agreed. Which is why there needs to be far more of a focus on bus service. Yet this forum is obsessed with putting a subway under any Avenue that had more than a dozen multi-storey buildings.

This video on comparing various American cities and Toronto's transit system could apply to Ottawa too:

• Video Link

My guess is that a lot of the emphasis on building fixed transit comes from the somewhat precarious nature of operational funding in most North American cities. When a transit agency is trying to fit into a spending envelope it's way easier to pare down lower-capacity bus service hours on less important routes than it is to cut service on higher-capacity lines that incurs costs whether they run or not. Over several budgets this degrades the whole transit network by a thousand cuts. You can see evidence of this here in the service "optimization" of 2011 and the #reallybigservicechange of 2019.

I think that's why we saw a revival of mixed-traffic streetcar projects in the early 2010s: people implicitly believe fixed lines will ensure their route sticks around. It's the good ol' sunk cost fallacy. We all know it wasn't a great idea but I can at least understand where they were coming from.

[Truenorth00]

I would trade all future O-Train expansion for 10 min bus service on every route at peak and all day on every major avenue.

In the video they say 30 min bus service running most of the day is the minimum. It's argue that in Ottawa, given our climate, that's 15-20 mins. And for real usability, 10 mins at peak.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Baybreeze12

My guess is that a lot of the emphasis on building fixed transit comes from the somewhat precarious nature of operational funding in most North American cities.

Nah. It's entirely political. Driven by the need for ribbon cutting by politicians. And by a lot of suburbanites (who don't actually use transit much) seeing rail as a status symbol.

Suburban politicians understand this and cater to this. It's why cutting bus services is no big deal. But they'll fight tooth and nail for rail expansion. Heck, they don't even care about rail service. How many have you heard complaining about the ridiculous off-peak service plans on the branches of the Confederation Line?

[Nowhere]

Toronto has a population density of 4334/km2 (inside city limits). The Ottawa-Gatineau urban area has a population density of 1900/km², while the Kanata urban area, which is far enough to be considered a separate urban area, has a population density of 1965/km²

The transit viability map I linked the other day from census mapper states that 3000/km2 is the bare minimum to make transit economically viable. Running buses every 10-15 in every suburb all day long would need an incredible amount of funding from the feds or Queen's Park.

[Truenorth00]

Over the whole urban area? Sure. But we don't even offer those kind of service inside the Greenbelt.

[Baybreeze12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nah. It's entirely political. Driven by the need for ribbon cutting by politicians. And by a lot of suburbanites (who don't actually use transit much) seeing rail as a status symbol.

Suburban politicians understand this and cater to this. It's why cutting bus services is no big deal. But they'll fight tooth and nail for rail expansion. Heck, they don't even care about rail service. How many have you heard complaining about the ridiculous off-peak service plans on the branches of the Confederation Line?

Okay sure, but everything that gets funded (or defunded) has a political reason. All politicians understand this and cater to this. They're trying to give their constituents what they want, because that's typically how they get reelected. The question we should be asking is why are so many groups more in favour of rail than bus? My (unoriginal) take is that when people compare their current underfunded, infrequent and spotty bus service versus a new train line that arrives at least somewhat reliably, they'll pick the expensive train buildout every time. You see this reflected in property values near fixed-guideway stations vs even BRT stops. The best way to redeem buses and tamp down on the "subways to suburbia" impulse is to permanently fund a proper bus network (and yes, this also includes things like priority measures).

Which in my eyes makes it an almost impossible fix: the solution for people who think we need more rail is to fund more bus service. Their position comes from transit scarcity, and it will continue until they are shown otherwise.

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Over the whole urban area? Sure. But we don't even offer those kind of service inside the Greenbelt.

The population density map shows that inner suburbs are no denser than Barrhaven, many are even less.

https://censusmapper.ca/maps/591#12/45.3310/-75.7157