Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Jay31]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

To add on this, the central loop between Parliament and Gatineau would be another line. Plus there is a possibility of that QED Tramway or Bank Street Tunnel which would be a 6th line. But the former is definitely more realistic in the next 10 years, whereas the latter would probably not be seen for another 20 years at least (or not at all). But 5-6 is definitely possible for Ottawa.

I'm probably dreaming, but there is also still a tram line marked on the transportation master plan for Carling Avenue, though no timeline. I think that's probably more likely than a Bank street tunnel or QED tram though.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

I think there's confusion between physical train tracks and train lines.

Line 1 and 3 will use the same double tracked route across the city - until they physically split in the west end at Lincoln Fields.

Eastbound from Lincoln Fields line 1 and 3 will go to the exact same stops all the way out to Trim station in Orleans.

This is a more detailed illustration
https://www.octranspo.com/en/news/article/welcome-to-your-future-otrain-network/

Ends of interlined lines are not separate lines. There would need to be 14 different ends before you could say that central section would have seven lines.

[DTcrawler]

Technically just three distinct lines (Confederation, Trillium and Airport) but from a user perspective, the Confederation line will be designated as Line 1 or Line 3 depending if the train's terminus is Algonquin or Moodie, respectively, thus making four lines total.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Technically just three distinct lines (Confederation, Trillium and Airport) but from a user perspective, the Confederation line will be designated as Line 1 or Line 3 depending if the train's terminus is Algonquin or Moodie, respectively, thus making four lines total.

No other transit system would call a split to two destinations a separate line.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by acottawa

No other transit system would call a split to two destinations a separate line.

London and New York would like to disagree.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Jay31

I'm probably dreaming, but there is also still a tram line marked on the transportation master plan for Carling Avenue, though no timeline. I think that's probably more likely than a Bank street tunnel or QED tram though.

Yes, Carling Tram has been in the plans for a decade and a bit. No studies done. No progress whatsoever. Stage 3 skipped over it.

That said, I don't think it's necessary. We're talking about a 4 lane stroad. We can easily build adequate bus facilities for a fraction of the cost. Bank, Rideau and Montreal don't have space and have too many intersections to make transit work (speed and reliability).

[OCCheetos]

While I guess some people are unhappy that Ottawa gets the claim of having "4 lines" (for some reason?), I don't think anyone can argue that it wasn't a sound decision from a wayfinding perspective. i.e. the one thing that matters about transit maps

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

While I guess some people are unhappy that Ottawa gets the claim of having "4 lines" (for some reason?), I don't think anyone can argue that it wasn't a sound decision from a wayfinding perspective. i.e. the one thing that matters about transit maps

My only problem is the poop-yellow colour of line 3. Otherwise, I'm happy with what they came up with.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

While I guess some people are unhappy that Ottawa gets the claim of having "4 lines" (for some reason?), I don't think anyone can argue that it wasn't a sound decision from a wayfinding perspective. i.e. the one thing that matters about transit maps

Then why does no other city in the world do it? It is going to make it hard to give directions to visitors.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Then why does no other city in the world do it? It is going to make it hard to give directions to visitors.

Copenhagen, Olso, Berlin. Plenty of cities do this.

How will it be hard to direct tourists? You're going to Bayshore, wait for the Line 3 train. Algonquin, wait for Line 1. If it's not the first train, it will be the second one.

If anything, I find Skytrain more confusing. There are no letters of numbers. You just have to know King George or Production-Way. Canada Line with the airport branch is a bit more obvious, but I think numbers would still be beneficial.

How would you have done it, Line 1A and 1B?

[OTownandDown]

I guess it's an interesting problem to have. Stockholm has three 'lines' that run through their downtown core. These each split into thirteen distinct destinations. Travelling in only the core, there are plenty of trains to catch, so long as you stay aware of the ultimate destination, and whether the train you hop on will be useful to you. I did experience a station with four lines inside, on two platforms. This was a transfer from regional to local trains (which we should have done for the airport platforms)

They also have a separate airport train, but it's super far to the airport, and the train is direct to the centre.

Following this logic, we still have just three lines. Line 1 will have three possible destinations. If the airport sh*t shuttle interlined at Southkeys, and the O-Train line were to be interlined at Bayview and head east through the tunnel before heading straight at the Rideau curve heading down Montreal Road (Wouldn't that be grand) we'd still have just two lines, despite the fact that they both use the downtown tunnel, and there are six destinations.



Just one more sh*tpost, I wanted to bring up Bangkok's BTS, they interestingly have no split ends. However, where lines intersect at transfer stations, the lines weave so that the most-used transfers involve a simple walk across the platform, instead of finding another station or platform. its insane to leave one train, walk 10 feet directly onto a transfer train, especially with several hundred of your fellow travellers. So efficient.

[Richard Eade]

How about looking at it this way:

Line 1: Algonquin to Trim
Line 2: Bayview to Limebank
Line 3: Moodie to Lincoln Fields
Line 4: Airport to South Keys

All four of these lines are separate and distinct – for some of the time. There are times when Line 3 can be extended east, running on some of the same tracks as Line 1. Line 3 does not run on the entire length of Line 1’s track; only a portion of it, and only at certain times. Line 1 does not run on Line 3’s track.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Copenhagen, Olso, Berlin. Plenty of cities do this.

How will it be hard to direct tourists? You're going to Bayshore, wait for the Line 3 train. Algonquin, wait for Line 1. If it's not the first train, it will be the second one.

If anything, I find Skytrain more confusing. There are no letters of numbers. You just have to know King George or Production-Way. Canada Line with the airport branch is a bit more obvious, but I think numbers would still be beneficial.

How would you have done it, Line 1A and 1B?

You're right, I should have said "why do very few cities do it"

They should do it the way London, etc. do it. The whole thing should be line one. The train and board should list the destination. There are so many disruptions passengers have to check the destination anyway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You're right, I should have said "why do very few cities do it"

They should do it the way London, etc. do it. The whole thing should be line one. The train and board should list the destination. There are so many disruptions passengers have to check the destination anyway.

I'd say it's half and half of networks that have lines that split consider each branch as it's own line. Other examples closer to home are St. Louis, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC, Atlanta, Portland... In Canada, we have Edmonton.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Then why does no other city in the world do it? It is going to make it hard to give directions to visitors.

I think you missed Catenary's reply right below your post which points out the most obvious example of this: New York
The entire colouring/naming scheme of New York's subway lines are based around shared trackage and branches off of those shared portions.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You're right, I should have said "why do very few cities do it"

They should do it the way London, etc. do it. The whole thing should be line one. The train and board should list the destination.

The trains and platform displays will list the number and destinations. The numbers are really supplemental to the actual destinations and I think the major benefit and reason to have the number is to provide a simple distinction between the services for someone who may not know where "Algonquin" is compared to "Moodie".

If we're really prioritizing destination (which I don't think is sufficient for wayfinding) then we shouldn't have line numbers at all, and that's been proven to be a bad idea.

There are so many disruptions passengers have to check the destination anyway.

Right, so this isn't a serious argument.

[swimmer_spe]

Including the existing lines and branches, what other lines and branches are being looked at for LRT/BRT?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think you missed Catenary's reply right below your post which points out the most obvious example of this: New York
The entire colouring/naming scheme of New York's subway lines are based around shared trackage and branches off of those shared portions.



The trains and platform displays will list the number and destinations. The numbers are really supplemental to the actual destinations and I think the major benefit and reason to have the number is to provide a simple distinction between the services for someone who may not know where "Algonquin" is compared to "Moodie".

If we're really prioritizing destination (which I don't think is sufficient for wayfinding) then we shouldn't have line numbers at all, and that's been proven to be a bad idea.


Right, so this isn't a serious argument.

New York has all kinds of things going on including express trains, locals, letters, numbers, etc. It isn't really comparable to any other city.

This isn't (like in some cities) a situation where multiple destinations share a central track for a short period of time. This is a line where 23 stops are shared and 2 or 4 are in the branches. In most scenarios the objective is to get onto a train in the right direction, which will be confused by having 2 lines share 23 stations. It will be extra confusing if there is a disruption in one of the branches and OC transpo has to cancel an entire route.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Including the existing lines and branches, what other lines and branches are being looked at for LRT/BRT?

There are two bus projects in the pipeline Cumberland Transitway and the Baseline BRT. I think they will both look something like VIVA in York region.

[Truenorth00]

Isn't the normal practice to identify branches by some sub nominal? So Line 1 with with 1A and 1B for different terminus?

In any event, I raised my earlier question because I think it's confusing to say we have 4 lines based solely on service numbering, as opposed to counting the actual physical rail lines. I'd say we have three rail lines (Confederation, Trillium and Airport) with 5 services. An infrastructure discussion is different from a service discussion. And I thought we were discussing infrastructure.

[Richard Eade]

How would you identify Line 3 when it is only running between Moodie and Lincoln Fields? Still Line 1B - even though it doesn't run on any of the Line 1 tracks?

Just as Line 4 has its own track, so does line 3. No other train runs on the Line 3 tracks. Just as Line 4 is a separate line, Line 3 is separate and does not always run to Trim. Just because Line 3 trains are sometimes extended onto Line 1's tracks to remove a transfer for customers does not make those trains Line 1 trains.