OC Transpo

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So for 1-2 years, the LRT could have the same issue, but it could be relieved easier than Yonge-Bloor.

What infrastructure limitations would the Confederation Line have in 1-2 years? Be specific. I don't see the comparison to Yonge-Bloor.

I don't think you fully understand what the issue is at Yonge-Bloor and it's why you keep making that comparison. There are numerous issues at play there, none of which will apply in Ottawa. Yonge-Bloor is physically constrained, so that platforms can't be lengthened, which means the TTC can't run longer trains. And the Yonge Line is operationally constrained. They can't run more trains without the ENTIRE line installing platform screen doors and automatic train operation.

None of these constraints apply in Ottawa. The Confederation Line has plenty of room to increase frequencies. Going from 5 mins to 4 mins, for example, would be a 25% increase in capacity through an increase in frequencies. And there's also plenty of room to boost train capacities by lengthening platforms to 120m. This is exact opposite of Yonge-Bloor's situation.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What infrastructure limitations would the Confederation Line have in 1-2 years? Be specific. I don't see the comparison to Yonge-Bloor, a station which is literally physically constrained from expansion. A brand new line designed for > 20 000 pphpd when existing demand is < 11 000 pphpd isn't going to have that problem.

I don't think you fully understand what the issue is at Yonge-Bloor and it's why you keep making that comparison. There are numerous issues at play there, none of which will apply in Ottawa.

So, If you are on the platform waiting for the next train at Yonge-Bloor, going to Union, you will get on the train that arrives? My experience is that you are waiting for at least the next train.

There are several reasons why this happens. Some are due to the station design, but some are due to the lack of space to fit the people on the platform on the train.

Now, think of when the LRT opens. You are waiting at a station. If the max is 7% higher than the current level, there could be a chance that at peak, you may have to wait for a second train to arrive to get on. This is how more trains or bigger trains would solve the issue.

[lrt's friend]

Toronto's problem are much bigger, because of the limitations on throughput and platform size. You can't just add more subway trains. Both the platform and rail line are at capacity. Nevertheless, if trains are overcapacity, there is not much difference. It is not as if you can get another train from the garage like we might be able to do if we were short of buses on the same line. It takes a lot longer to purchase additional trains and put them into service. This is why it is important to have more excess capacity with trains than for buses.

[White Pine]

Not sure if already posted, but I thought Uhuniau might like this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ecap-1.5010319

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, If you are on the platform waiting for the next train at Yonge-Bloor, going to Union, you will get on the train that arrives? My experience is that you are waiting for at least the next train.

My experience in Toronto is usually waiting for 2-3 trains to pass at peak.

You won't have that situation in Ottawa. Which station do you anticipate will have trains arriving at or close to 100% of capacity? The likely stations where that will happen (Lyon from the West and Rideau from the East) will be the ones where passengers disembark, freeing up room.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There are several reasons why this happens. Some are due to the station design, but some are due to the lack of space to fit the people on the platform on the train.

The Confederation Line isn't lacking for platform space.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, think of when the LRT opens. You are waiting at a station. If the max is 7% higher than the current level, there could be a chance that at peak, you may have to wait for a second train to arrive to get on. This is how more trains or bigger trains would solve the issue.

If the max capacity is 7% above current demand, why would you be waiting? This means that on average there's room for 20-40 more passengers on every train. How exactly would that lead to pax having to wait for another train?

I feel like this is one of those situations where Ottawans want to desperately have Toronto problems so they can feel like they have a big city. Yonge-Bloor is a situation that is unique to Toronto. It's a downtown rail-rail transfer node, that is physically constrained from expansion, on a line that is operationally constrained from growth. It's a train of similar capacity dumping an almost full pax load onto a station where the incoming connection is substantially full. In Ottawa, you have buses with 1/6th the capacity of the train dropping pax off pax. And the LRVs are twinned at rush hour. So it's actually closer to 1/12th.

ps. I think you are also missing the fact that the demand numbers we talk about are peak. That's what pphpd means. "Passengers per hour in the peak direction". They aren't sizing 10 700 for 11AM. They are going to offer 10 700 pphpd at rush hour.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Not sure if already posted, but I thought Uhuniau might like this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ecap-1.5010319

This should be done by all politicians in everywhere that has transit. Then, maybe this country can get out of the dark ages of transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This should be done by all politicians in everywhere that has transit. Then, maybe this country can get out of the dark ages of transit.

Do you think it will make a difference?

The problem is that we have spent so much money on detour service and we know that we will spending that much again for Phase 2, there is nothing left to actually improve connecting bus service.

If only there was a way that we could have built rail without shutting down the Transitways. I would like to know how much money has been spent on detour service so far.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So for 1-2 years, the LRT could have the same issue, but it could be relieved easier than Yonge-Bloor.

You really need to watch some transitway videos or visit Ottawa sometime. I think you’re imagining something that just isn’t there.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. I don't get the comparison to Yonge-Bloor. The TTC faces major issues at Yonge-Bloor because the station can't be redesigned to accomodate overcrowding. And further capacity increases on the Yonge Line would require Platform Screen Doors and fully automated operation along the entire line.

There's no comparison to Ottawa, where the peak capacity is entirely a function of how many LRVs were purchased and how peak schedules operate. If they find demand more than anticipated, they can buy more LRVs and get them delivered within a year.

A reasonable comparison might be Islington where a similar number of buses empty onto a nearly-empty train.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Do you think it will make a difference?

The problem is that we have spent so much money on detour service and we know that we will spending that much again for Phase 2, there is nothing left to actually improve connecting bus service.

If only there was a way that we could have built rail without shutting down the Transitways. I would like to know how much money has been spent on detour service so far.

Well, if to be a councilor, MPP, or MP in a city meant you must refrain from using your personal vehicle while in office, it might force them to see what transit is needed and then they would find the money.

They could have built 1 lane/track at a time and left the other lane for the inbound routes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, if to be a councilor, MPP, or MP in a city meant you must refrain from using your personal vehicle while in office, it might force them to see what transit is needed and then they would find the money.

They could have built 1 lane/track at a time and left the other lane for the inbound routes.

It was more important to expand roads in the process. We will see this in Phase 2 as well. Part of the money for rapid transit is for roads! That says a lot.

Don't tell me we couldn't have kept a direct link open between Hurdman and downtown. Why didn't we build a new transit bridge using the Alta Vista corridor? Instead, we widen the Queensway bridge with a very convoluted access.

When I see comments about doing the project on the cheap, the sloppy detours that cost the city millions in service delays is a perfect example. You would never see road construction approached this way. The city would be at war if a road project delayed traffic for years. But it is just transit riders.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

What about commuters who may be induced to drive now that some of the bus only lanes are removed for all types of traffic? total ridership could remain the same.

If those lanes are converted to HOV, then it should still help reduce congestion by encouraging people to carpool.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If those lanes are converted to HOV, then it should still help reduce congestion by encouraging people to carpool.

I am not sure those lanes would have much impact either way as the bottlenecks are the split, Laurier intersection and the canal bridge.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It was more important to expand roads in the process. We will see this in Phase 2 as well. Part of the money for rapid transit is for roads! That says a lot.

Don't tell me we couldn't have kept a direct link open between Hurdman and downtown. Why didn't we build a new transit bridge using the Alta Vista corridor? Instead, we widen the Queensway bridge with a very convoluted access.

When I see comments about doing the project on the cheap, the sloppy detours that cost the city millions in service delays is a perfect example. You would never see road construction approached this way. The city would be at war if a road project delayed traffic for years. But it is just transit riders.

You mean you have never seen them rip up the same section of road multiple times?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You mean you have never seen them rip up the same section of road multiple times?

Oh, you mean the multiple times that they dug up the same bodies on Queen Street?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A reasonable comparison might be Islington where a similar number of buses empty onto a nearly-empty train.

Exactly. Our largest transfer nodes will be at the major bus depots and terminus and the one rail-rail transfer we have. So Blair, St-Laurent, Hurdman in the East; Rideau in the core; and Bayiew and Tunney’s Pasture in the West. And virtually none of these stations have enough incoming bus traffic to fill an entire twinned LRV at rush in the 4-5 mins that the next LRV will be arriving.

But even more to the point, the expectation that you may never have to wait for the next train is patently ridiculous. No city in the world (except maybe in Japan) gives you that kind of service guarantee. Disruption, bunching, etc. happens. Unless we want to spend hundreds of millions on management of the bus network and another quarter billion on installing fully automated train operation with platform screen doors, there can never be a guarantee that you’ll never have an occassional event where you have to wait for another train.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You really need to watch some transitway videos or visit Ottawa sometime. I think you’re imagining something that just isn’t there.

Yeah. I really don’t get the Y/B comparison. I think it’s more like transplanted Torontonians see all transit issues through a Toronto perspective.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Not sure if already posted, but I thought Uhuniau might like this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ecap-1.5010319

It's been pleasantly surprising to see so many councilors take part in this, and in some cases, it looks like it's removed some wool from a few eyes.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's say you're prediction comes true, OC Transpo just needs to buy a few more LRVs and increase frequencies and they can boost capacity to match. It wouldn't take all that much to get to 12 000 pphpd. 5-6 more LRVs.

You would actually only need 4 more LRVs to achieve 12,000 pphpd, and we already have 2 of those ordered. Here is the math if you don't beleive me:

The initial capacity is based on 16 double trains with a capacity of 600 people each and a cycle time of 54 minutes (25 minutes each way plus 2 minutes dwell time at each end). 16 * 600 / (54/60) = 10,666 2/3 pphpd which rounds to 10,700 pphpd with 3 sig.figs.

Working backwards, 12,000 * (54/60) / 600 = 18 double trains, so 4 extra LRVs.

For those interested, with the 2 extra LRVs on order, the capacity will jump to 11,300. That represents a 13% increase in capacity from the current peak demand.

Now once Stage 2 opens, additional trains will be required because of the longer cycle time, but that is all included in the order.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's been pleasantly surprising to see so many councilors take part in this, and in some cases, it looks like it's removed some wool from a few eyes.

Yup, this has been amazing to follow along with on Twitter. It seems like a lot of the councillors have been trying hard to take transit as much as possible, and own up to the fact when they weren't able to due to time commitments.

I think it's a shame that some councillors and our own mayor deemed their time too important to try taking the bus for one week of their life like a majority of us do every day of the year.

[J.OT13]

I can understand why the Mayor turned down the challenge as he travels all across the City nearly everyday for events, meetings and ribbon cuttings. Very few of us travel to that extent on a daily basis.

Looking at the Councillors who did not participate, three represent rural Wards with limited service (though they could have parked and rode). Harder who constantly complains about traffic in her Ward has no excuse, neither does Chiarelli.