Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

YOU live way out in a rural/suburban setting...

Today I learned that Cyrville station is "rural/suburban"....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

You act as though tripping and falling to one's death on the tracks is a regular occurrence on our system. I can assure you the opposite. Especially on low floor designed system stations. I can recall only one incident of someone falling on the o-train tracks and they were helped up and not seriously injured. You have a 1000000x better chance getting hit by a car walking out of the station. You also act as though the budgets would just allow installation of this costly system.

And yet every one of these situations will bring the system to a halt. All it takes is a few goofy teenagers dropping a cellphone on the tracks to trigger the protections. I'm sure you'll start to understand it once we get the service halts they do in Toronto.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

If you don't appreciate the experience of train travel than I fear you have lost the Joie de vivre. Even as a daily rider I appreciated the sounds, smells, and feel of train travel.

If I didn't value transit, I wouldn't choose to live beside transit. But I do have more things to do than ride the rails all day. I ride transit first and foremost to go somewhere, not for the "joie de vivre". And I doubt the vast majority of transit users are any different.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

As for the protection from the elements argument, perhaps someone as fragile as yourself who cannot tolerate Ontario's "hot summers and cold winters" climate would be better suited in another area of the globe.

You're right on this one. I look forward to eventually retiring in a city that actually knows how to build transit and walkable streets for users rather than the "joie de vivre" of railfans.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

The ironic part is, you speak with such ignorant confidence on a subject i'm sure you have zero formal expertise in, like a real-life Dunning–Kruger effect case study. You also belive that anyone that "really knows transit like you" would agree with your distorted take on the issue, and "laugh me out of the room". Perhaps, let people have their own opinions on an issue and have a conversation/debate without attacking them and mocking them in a public form next time.

That's quite the projection on your part. Don't take my word for it. Go ahead and post your nonsense outside this safe space and see the reaction.

Why not go to a Montreal forum and tell them that REM is all wrong and that they should have designed it so they can enjoy the "joie de vivre" that comes with displaced air of a train. Be sure to tell the Japanese, Koreans, etc that they are ignorant too. While you're at it, be sure to tell the folks at Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario how much they misunderstand transit users too with their Ontario Line design.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Psychedelic Sailor

I am fully in favour of PSD and I'm also surprised not everybody is

Shouldn't be surprised when we have people who think that safety and efficiency and rider comfort are less of a priority than the sheer experience of riding transit......

What? Riding the Confederation Line isn't the absolute highlight of your day? Well then you're an ignorant hick who has no clue about how beautiful the experience of getting a wave of form drag in your face really is.

If the Confederation Line was built in the 90s, no PSDs, no open payments, etc would have been just fine. To do this in the 2010s was bizarre. If you told any European or Asian that the Confederation Line was only a few years old, there's a good chance they might not believe you.

But in this forum, Ottawa can do no wrong. And transit 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in all those other places. We have nothing to learn from them. So....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think you (and others) have this idea that enclosed stations would cost a lot. This ignores offset cost. Because barriers require automation, trains can be run tighter and stations can be built smaller. This results in substantial cost savings for elevated and especially underground stations. I'm inclined to think that the savings on our stations lengths alone would probably have offset most of the cost of enclosure and automation. Metro rolling stock is also usually cheaper than LRVs. Operating costs would be slightly higher, and even a lot of that comes down to what level of comfort wants to be provided. There's obviously higher bills to keeping a station at 20 degrees year round than say 10 degrees in the winter and 25 degrees in the summer.

You don't need PSDs for high-floor light metro, full automation and shorter platforms. Vancouver has a high-floor light metro that can run 1.5 minutes frequencies along 80 meter platforms with the same ultimate capacity as the Confed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This results in substantial cost savings for elevated and especially underground stations.

Going back to this quote, and I really don't want to re-open the Bank Street debate on the Confed thread, but you made it seem like heavy rail subway and underground light-metro was basically the same price on that fantasy thread, so which is it?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just ask yourself why an entity that would be motivated to cut cost like CDPQ would choose to build fully enclosed climate controlled stations. Why did the Union Pearson Express do it for terminal stations? Why is it the preferred solution for the Ontario Line? Why are most new metro systems or metro lines built with PSDs as a minimum and usually enclosed in extreme climates? Are they all clueless about the cost?

There's nothing wrong with admitting that we screwed up and made a boneheaded decision. Admitting it, might be first step to learning from it.

Ottawa had a very tight budget to work with. Toronto (or Metrolinx in the case of the Ontario Line) basically has a blank cheque. The original plan was a heavy rail subway and Ford came in proposing the Ontario Line. Maybe scaling back the project from fully underground heavy rail allowed for climate controlled stations and a longer route.

I'm of the opinion that a light-metro with full automation and shorter platforms would have been better than what we built. I don't think platform screen doors and climate control is the end all be all. Nice to have, but I see dollar signs. Neither of us claim to be transit costing experts, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[TransitZilla]

This conversation has gotten a little ridiculous.

I'm sure the REM will be a great system. But the O-Train is a pretty great system too.

There's probably a bunch of ways it could have been better- everything can always be better. But hand-wringing about the system that we have and acting as though we could have had some kind of magical, perfect system where $ is no object is silly.

[swimmer_spe]

Think of the challenges we are facing with air quality in this pandemic. By having no PSDs you have a good amount of ventilation due to the movement of the train. We have learned that sealed up enclosed space are a breeding ground for viruses.

PSDs also lock in more of what the future transit will look like as those doors must line up with all future cars. Toronto Subways allow for more configurations, and even allows for the potential of having the very first door at the end of the platform.

However, yes, they are great to allow for climate control. They are great in preventing deaths from the train hitting someone that is on the tracks.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Going back to this quote, and I really don't want to re-open the Bank Street debate on the Confed thread, but you made it seem like heavy rail subway and underground light-metro was basically the same price on that fantasy thread, so which is it?

We were discussing a comparison to surface running LRT as the alternative. From that perspective whether you build a $250M/km light metro or $300M/km heavy rail metro underground, it really isn't going to change the reality that surface LRT would be $80-100M/km (and on the lower end if cars are removed entirely).

With regards to the Confederation Line, the difference would have been really close to a wash, given that we have 3 underground stations that could have gone down to 80m platforms.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ottawa had a very tight budget to work with. Toronto (or Metrolinx in the case of the Ontario Line) basically has a blank cheque. The original plan was a heavy rail subway and Ford came in proposing the Ontario Line. Maybe scaling back the project from fully underground heavy rail allowed for climate controlled stations and a longer route.

Budgets have very little to do with this. Metrolinx changed the concept from using existing heavy rail subway cars because they figured out that smaller trains at higher frequencies gave them the same capacity, while reducing station boxes to smaller than any TTC station today. The climate conditioning is an added bonus. The big difference that Ford brought in was a willingness to remove rolling stock compatibility from the rest of the TTC network. It's likely that in due course the rest of the TTC network will be upgraded to allow for the same rolling stock.

I would argue Ottawa could have done the same and built a light metro. Any climate conditioning would have been a really easy bonus. Heck, worst case scenario, the sacrificed Tunney's Pasture in Stage 1 to pay for it. I would bet money, once it was built, the enthusiasm to expand would have made up any lost ground anyway.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm of the opinion that a light-metro with full automation and shorter platforms would have been better than what we built. I don't think platform screen doors and climate control is the end all be all.

Nobody ever suggested it was "the end all be all". But the thinking process that led to our bureaucrats basically ignoring what are now norms on most new systems or new lines, is what we should worry about. It will undoubtedly lead to similarly bad decisions in the future.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Nice to have, but I see dollar signs. Neither of us claim to be transit costing experts, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

REM: ~$7B for 67km and 26 fully enclosed climate controlled stations.
O-Train: ~$7B for 65km and 41 stations.

But REM has had to build so much more in grade separation from scratch than OC Transpo built in Ottawa. So I am not sure the cost argument really holds.

Originally Posted by bradnixon

There's probably a bunch of ways it could have been better- everything can always be better. But hand-wringing about the system that we have and acting as though we could have had some kind of magical, perfect system where $ is no object is silly.

Poor decisions are never random. They are usually the result of a corporate culture and decision making process that leads to such. Automatically writing off something as expensive with no investigation is an example of this.

Like I wrote earlier, I attended some of the pre-definition public consultations for the LRT before it even had a name, in the O'Brien era. At the time, one of the potential bidders kinkisharyo specifically suggested a light metro system, enclosed stations, etc. It is amazing to me that they understood what we needed, told us, and then our spec writers completely ignored all of that, based on the vague idea that we would run LRT on suburban avenues.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Think of the challenges we are facing with air quality in this pandemic. By having no PSDs you have a good amount of ventilation due to the movement of the train. We have learned that sealed up enclosed space are a breeding ground for viruses.

If that's going to be the argument against enclosed stations, then it really works against the trains and buses themselves, which are much more enclosed than the stations. Guess we should avoid building any transit at all, for fear of the pandemic?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If that's going to be the argument against enclosed stations, then it really works against the trains and buses themselves, which are much more enclosed than the stations. Guess we should avoid building any transit at all, for fear of the pandemic?

If we could fit thousands in a bus, then I guess you are right.Buses can open windows. Try doing that on a subway, or even at a station with PSDs. We can argue semantics till the cows come home. Nothing is all good or all bad, and I pointed out the good and bad.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If we could fit thousands in a bus, then I guess you are right.Buses can open windows. Try doing that on a subway, or even at a station with PSDs. We can argue semantics till the cows come home. Nothing is all good or all bad, and I pointed out the good and bad.

You pointed out a ridiculous red herring. Enclosed transit stations aren't hermetically sealed boxes. They have ventilation systems.

Your numbers argument is ridiculous too. Those thousands of people on platform all end up on trains and buses. Do they not breathe at all during their trip?

If you're going to resort to such nonsense, I assume you have evidence of Covid outbreaks in enclosed stations. Please feel free to post it.

[lrt's friend]

There is no point in could haves and should haves. Ottawa LRT history was littered with fumbling around and what we got was a result of that fumbling around. We also have to consider that REM arose at least 10 years after Ottawa was originally developing its LRT plan. New ideas arose in that 10 year period and Montreal clearly found new ideas that were not considered in Canada before. Like it or hate it, the Confederation Line had its genesis with the Chiarelli plan and it inherited certain characteristics from that plan. All we can do now, is move forward and make the best of what we have.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You pointed out a ridiculous red herring. Enclosed transit stations aren't hermetically sealed boxes. They have ventilation systems.

Your numbers argument is ridiculous too. Those thousands of people on platform all end up on trains and buses. Do they not breathe at all during their trip?

If you're going to resort to such nonsense, I assume you have evidence of Covid outbreaks in enclosed stations. Please feel free to post it.

So, PSDs have no down sides?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Poor decisions are never random. They are usually the result of a corporate culture and decision making process that leads to such. Automatically writing off something as expensive with no investigation is an example of this.

Like I wrote earlier, I attended some of the pre-definition public consultations for the LRT before it even had a name, in the O'Brien era. At the time, one of the potential bidders kinkisharyo specifically suggested a light metro system, enclosed stations, etc. It is amazing to me that they understood what we needed, told us, and then our spec writers completely ignored all of that, based on the vague idea that we would run LRT on suburban avenues.

This is all interesting, but our system is built and we're not going to go back and rip it out. I just don't see the point of this discussion, and it definitely shouldn't be in this thread.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, PSDs have no down sides?

The cost of installation maybe? And that is probably only really applicable to retrofits. Much cheaper when incorporated in from the start.

Which is exactly why so many new systems incorporate them these days. It's rare for new metro systems, especially light metros, built in the 21st century to not have high automation and PSDs. The cost-benefit makes it a no-brainer.

Something not applicable to Ottawa, but of relevance to Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver is the impact of debris. Track fires with third rail aren't uncommon. And they can and do halt service. PSDs help substantially with this, even if it's not an enclosed station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

This is all interesting, but our system is built and we're not going to go back and rip it out. I just don't see the point of this discussion, and it definitely shouldn't be in this thread.

Feel free not to participate.

I think the history is quite relevant. And we're going to be living with the poor decisions they made in 2010 for the rest of our lives at least.

I think the only way to stop similarly boneheaded decision-making in the future is to recognize where things went wrong before.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Feel free not to participate.

I think the history is quite relevant. And we're going to be living with the poor decisions they made in 2010 for the rest of our lives at least.

I think the only way to stop similarly boneheaded decision-making in the future is to recognize where things went wrong before.

There is a big difference between recognizing past mistakes and dwelling on them years after they have been made, rehashing old arguments again and again every few years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is a big difference between recognizing past mistakes and dwelling on them years after they have been made, rehashing old arguments again and again every few years.

It's hardly dwelling on them.

But I am mostly certainly going to push back against this forum's orthodoxy that transit planning is flawless in Ottawa and that anything and everything done is automatically in the interest of riders. There's also a lot of apparent misunderstanding on these technologies, as is apparent in these discussions, that should be called out.

There's a tendency here to simply handwave away flaws and then tell critics that:

1) They are rural hicks who don't use transit.

2) That Ottawa has nothing to learn from cities elsewhere because they made mistakes in their transit delivery at some point.

3) If you argue for rider comfort, you're a wimp who doesn't know how to dress for the weather. OC Transpo should definitely advertise being uncomfortable as a feature, to all these tough Ottawans who are genetically bred for the climate apparently.....

[roger1818]

I don’t think anyone is saying “that transit planning is flawless in Ottawa” (It is far from it), but one should take the Serenity Prayer to heart in many of these discussions.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, PSDs have no down sides?

The big downside to PSDs would be the fact they’re paired to a particular vehicle’s door patterns. If we decide to purchase the longer trainsets ( or opt for a different manufacturer) in the future, we may not be able to run them concurrently with the shorter ones

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The big downside to PSDs would be the fact they’re paired to a particular vehicle’s door patterns. If we decide to purchase the longer trainsets ( or opt for a different manufacturer) in the future, we may not be able to run them concurrently with the shorter ones

This true today because we built a system around LRVs. We would have had a lot more options had we designed a system around metro vehicles.

At this point, any move to acquire PSDs has to basically be paired with any future replacement of rolling stock. So this discussion is basically done for another 25-30 years.