Airport Rail Link

[1overcosc]

^I think innsertname was speaking mostly about the supposed "capacity crunch" at Bayview non-problem.

The ARL as proposed with the weird split service is just ridiculous; I hope to god the province doesn't give the city the extra dollars for it. If the main trunk of the Trillium line was double tracked though allowing for decent frequency to both branches (and all trains going to Bayview!), then it would be a good idea.

Local rapid transit doesn't generally cater to tourists; it caters more to airport employees and locals. Tourists generally go for fancy airport trains. For example, if Toronto ever built the Eglinton West line to the airport, I imagine most tourists wouldn't take it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not for airport trains. Most airports that have train services offer a single ride to a central part of the city (London, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Toronto, Vancouver, Newark, Washington, San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, new Berlin airport, Frankfurt, Munich, Copenhagen, Brussels, Singapore, Tokyo). The only ones I can think of offhand that don't are JFK (where there is a train that links to a suburban subway stop), Shanghai (where the maglev goes to a suburban transfer station) and the old Berlin airport (where the final leg was a bus from the closest S-Bahn station).

I understand that there are perfectly good reasons why a downtown train doesn't make sense (how close YYZ is to downtown, the parkway network makes it hard to compete with cabs for time, Ottawa is not a hub airport and doesn't get a lot of traffic) but without a business case for a downtown train, it makes no sense to build a half-assed solution that offers little benefit for anyone. It would be better to continue the 97, maybe with better branding to identify it as an airport bus as well as luggage racks (Dublin does this, it works well).

Does city council or our transit planners or the consultants that seem to have blinded everybody understand this? I don't think anybody is remotely thinking of continuing direct service from downtown to the airport after 2018.

Even in Calgary with its very popular C-Train, does not dump airport passengers at the closest C-Train station. The airport buses go downtown because if you are going to have transit to the airport, you need to satisfy the demand and the demand is to be taken to downtown hotels.

What does this say about our 'experts'?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ The fact that the bus system here is set up with so much point-to-point buses makes people aversive to transfers here, even though the point-to-point setup ultimately results in a worse quality service. It will take time for people to get used to the idea that transferring is a normal and healthy part of a trip.

People will remain transfer adverse as long as service frequency remains poor.

The point to point setup making for worse service is an overblown concept. Whenever I have seen examples, the trunk line option with better frequency always requires more buses to deliver the 'better' service. In most cases, transit services have already optimized service to minimize overcapacity where routes overlap. And when point to point service is eliminated, travel times almost always get longer, and in many cases, ridership declines.

[McC]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not for airport trains. Most airports that have train services offer a single ride to a central part of the city (London, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Toronto, Vancouver, Newark, Washington, San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, new Berlin airport, Frankfurt, Munich, Copenhagen, Brussels, Singapore, Tokyo). The only ones I can think of offhand that don't are JFK (where there is a train that links to a suburban subway stop), Shanghai (where the maglev goes to a suburban transfer station) and the old Berlin airport (where the final leg was a bus from the closest S-Bahn station).
.

Newark? you have to take the Airport's monorail (or sometimes a slowcoach bus) to the train station; and FTR, I found Newark's Penn Station to be extremely poorly signed for figuring which platform had the commuter trains (not the AMTRAK trains) to NYC.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Does city council or our transit planners or the consultants that seem to have blinded everybody understand this? I don't think anybody is remotely thinking of continuing direct service from downtown to the airport after 2018.

Even in Calgary with its very popular C-Train, does not dump airport passengers at the closest C-Train station. The airport buses go downtown because if you are going to have transit to the airport, you need to satisfy the demand and the demand is to be taken to downtown hotels.

What does this say about our 'experts'?

I think it depends on how the question is framed. Is it technically feasible to extend the trillium line as a single-track diesel train to the airport. Yes.

Nobody asked if it was the most efficient use of transit dollars, or whether it would attract riders or whether it was better than alternatives or what best practices are in the area of airport transportation for an airport with similar characteristics to Ottawa.

[White Pine]

I know! We could have a gondola from downtown to the airport!!!

[bikegypsy]

It is very likely that the Bayview area will part of the business district of downtown in 20-30 years. The current core is packed like sardines, centre town (especially Somerset to Queensway) is mostly zoned unfavorably and the market area/rideau is filling rather quickly. The only place to grow for the core is westward.

As for the Trillium line itself in respect to the airport link, we have to put things in perpective. I've flown in many airports around the world and getting into downtown was never a straight forward "one train ride". I recently landed in Bangkok and wanted to avoid the nasty insane trafic. It took no less than one 20 minute airport link (train) ride, 2 skytrain rides and a 5 minute cab ride. So that's 3 trains plus a taxi ride. Osaka was similar, so were Seoul, San Francisco and London.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I can't see the proposed airport link being of much use to visitors (presented with a choice between taking 2-3 trains or a 20 minute taxi ride, or hopefully a 20 minute uber ride). It's a vanity project for the city designed to look nice in brochures at appeal to the "me too" crowd, it should be paid for by the city.

Well that sounds great. I will take ANY amount of vanity that Ottawa can muster... we all know it needs it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It is very likely that the Bayview area will part of the business district of downtown in 20-30 years. The current core is packed like sardines, centre town (especially Somerset to Queensway) is mostly zoned unfavorably and the market area/rideau is filling rather quickly. The only place to grow for the core is westward.

As for the Trillium line itself in respect to the airport link, we have to put things in perpective. I've flown in many airports around the world and getting into downtown was never a straight forward "one train ride". I recently landed in Bangkok and wanted to avoid the nasty insane trafic. It took no less than one 20 minute airport link (train) ride, 2 skytrain rides and a 5 minute cab ride. So that's 3 trains plus a taxi ride. Osaka was similar, so were Seoul, San Francisco and London.

And how is Ottawa like Bangkok? If Bangkok had a parkway network linking the airport to downtown would you have taken 3 trains and a taxi or just hopped on a taxi for a 20 minute ride downtown?

I've never taken an airport train in Seoul and I have never been to Osaka, but in San Francisco the BART goes directly from the airport to downtown and in London the Heathrow Express goes directly from Terminal 5 and Heathrow Central to Paddington. Crossrail will eventually link Heathrow to numrous points in central London as well.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

It is very likely that the Bayview area will part of the business district of downtown in 20-30 years. The current core is packed like sardines, centre town (especially Somerset to Queensway) is mostly zoned unfavorably and the market area/rideau is filling rather quickly. The only place to grow for the core is westward.

As for the Trillium line itself in respect to the airport link, we have to put things in perpective. I've flown in many airports around the world and getting into downtown was never a straight forward "one train ride". I recently landed in Bangkok and wanted to avoid the nasty insane trafic. It took no less than one 20 minute airport link (train) ride, 2 skytrain rides and a 5 minute cab ride. So that's 3 trains plus a taxi ride. Osaka was similar, so were Seoul, San Francisco and London.

BART takes you direct from the airport to Market Street. I know. I used it.

I have also visited Soeul. Maybe not a direct train, but there was a direct bus, at least when I was there.

I also used the tube from Heathrow in London and it got me within 2 blocks of where I was staying. I am looking at the London tube map and it goes directly to Piccadilly Circus.

Obviously, with very large cities, subways and rail services cannot cover everywhere and transfers are not unreasonable. But Ottawa does not have a large downtown area.

Also, horrendous traffic in very large cities, makes transfers between very frequent transit lines still competitive. That is not the situation in Ottawa.

I expect that there will be a transformation in downtown Ottawa over time, but it is hard to believe that the 'centre of the action' now in east downtown around the Rideau Centre, the Byward Market and Elgin Street, will move that much. West downtown will obviously have more to offer in the future but I am not convinced that it can replace what east downtown has to offer today and whether that is a good thing anyways. Bayview will remain the western extremity and only time will tell whether this will become an interesting place or not. Just because it is a transfer station doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a vibrant location and a destination in its own rights. There is going to be a lot of competition in the Bayview-Lebreton and the islands areas. Not all of it can be 'the' place to go. Just as today, where west downtown is pretty dead despite the building of many condos and office buildings.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And how is Ottawa like Bangkok?

It's not and that's not the point.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If Bangkok had a parkway network linking the airport to downtown would you have taken 3 trains and a taxi or just hopped on a taxi for a 20 minute ride downtown?

It does, and yes I still would have. It's quicker and cheaper. Mind you, taking a cab in central BKK to either one of the 2 airports is cheaper than coming from the airport.... in general half the price.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I've never taken an airport train in Seoul and I have never been to Osaka, but in San Francisco the BART goes directly from the airport to downtown and in London the Heathrow Express goes directly from Terminal 5 and Heathrow Central to Paddington. Crossrail will eventually link Heathrow to numrous points in central London as well.

True about SF... I used to live in the Bay area and was thinking in those general terms. As for London, central London is quite large... It doesn't mean that my hotel (or where ever I'm going) is around Paddington. And most people who would use such a system won't be people on business. They might be locals returning home or backpackers on a shoe string.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

BART takes you direct from the airport to Market Street. I know. I used it.

I have also visited Soeul. Maybe not a direct train, but there was a direct bus, at least when I was there.

I also used the tube from Heathrow in London and it got me within 2 blocks of where I was staying. I am looking at the London tube map and it goes directly to Piccadilly Circus.

Obviously, with very large cities, subways and rail services cannot cover everywhere and transfers are not unreasonable. But Ottawa does not have a large downtown area.

Also, horrendous traffic in very large cities, makes transfers between very frequent transit lines still competitive. That is not the situation in Ottawa.

I expect that there will be a transformation in downtown Ottawa over time, but it is hard to believe that the 'centre of the action' now in east downtown around the Rideau Centre, the Byward Market and Elgin Street, will move that much. West downtown will obviously have more to offer in the future but I am not convinced that it can replace what east downtown has to offer today and whether that is a good thing anyways. Bayview will remain the western extremity and only time will tell whether this will become an interesting place or not. Just because it is a transfer station doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a vibrant location and a destination in its own rights. There is going to be a lot of competition in the Bayview-Lebreton and the islands areas. Not all of it can be 'the' place to go. Just as today, where west downtown is pretty dead despite the building of many condos and office buildings.

Good for you for not having to walk very far.... But that was your case... there are lots of hotels in London and perhaps I'm not going to one which is located along that line.

At the end of the day, we all behave differently when using airport transportation. Speaking for myself, I won't use a bus unless it's a hotel shuttle. And I generally avoid cabs; i've been in a few situations. So yes, the train is always my favourite option, even if I have to take one or two more whatnots to get to where I want to go.

[1overcosc]

The airport link as envisioned is mainly targeting locals--both airport workers and Ottawans leaving town. With relatively easy taxi rides to the core that will always be the primary/main option for out-of-town tourists. And for locals, given most are ultimately coming from the suburban areas anyway, the lack of a direct trip to the CBD is not really relevant.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

People will remain transfer adverse as long as service frequency remains poor.

The point to point setup making for worse service is an overblown concept. Whenever I have seen examples, the trunk line option with better frequency always requires more buses to deliver the 'better' service. In most cases, transit services have already optimized service to minimize overcapacity where routes overlap. And when point to point service is eliminated, travel times almost always get longer, and in many cases, ridership declines.

A system of high frequency routes with transfers (like, for example, Toronto has) is better than low frequency point-to-point (which we have here).

If travelling from, say, the CBD to Civic Hospital, consider two hypothetical bus systems:
System A: A 5-minute frequency bus down Bank, then at Catherine transfer to a 5-minute frequency bus down Catherine/Carling
System B: A direct single-seat ride on a 15 minute frequency bus

System A has an average wait of 2.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD; followed by an average wait of 2.5 minutes at the transfer point, for a total of 5 minutes of waiting.

System B has an average wait of 7.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD. So System A is actually 2.5 minutes faster despite requiring a transfer.

A high frequency grid of non-overlapping routes is the best form of transit.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A system of high frequency routes with transfers (like, for example, Toronto has) is better than low frequency point-to-point (which we have here).

If travelling from, say, the CBD to Civic Hospital, consider two hypothetical bus systems:
System A: A 5-minute frequency bus down Bank, then at Catherine transfer to a 5-minute frequency bus down Catherine/Carling
System B: A direct single-seat ride on a 15 minute frequency bus

System A has an average wait of 2.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD; followed by an average wait of 2.5 minutes at the transfer point, for a total of 5 minutes of waiting.

System B has an average wait of 7.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD. So System A is actually 2.5 minutes faster despite requiring a transfer.

A high frequency grid of non-overlapping routes is the best form of transit.

I think that's true if the frequency is high and the reliability is good, but the trillium line doesn't have particularly good frequency, has terrible reliability and the need for an extra transfer at south keys makes everything even more complicated.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Does city council or our transit planners or the consultants that seem to have blinded everybody understand this? I don't think anybody is remotely thinking of continuing direct service from downtown to the airport after 2018.

Even in Calgary with its very popular C-Train, does not dump airport passengers at the closest C-Train station. The airport buses go downtown because if you are going to have transit to the airport, you need to satisfy the demand and the demand is to be taken to downtown hotels.

What does this say about our 'experts'?

Every time I've taken transit to/from the Calgary Airport, it's been via the C-train and the local bus which connects the C-train and the terminal.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Every time I've taken transit to/from the Calgary Airport, it's been via the C-train and the local bus which connects the C-train and the terminal.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Route 300 now goes to the airport from downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A system of high frequency routes with transfers (like, for example, Toronto has) is better than low frequency point-to-point (which we have here).

If travelling from, say, the CBD to Civic Hospital, consider two hypothetical bus systems:
System A: A 5-minute frequency bus down Bank, then at Catherine transfer to a 5-minute frequency bus down Catherine/Carling
System B: A direct single-seat ride on a 15 minute frequency bus

System A has an average wait of 2.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD; followed by an average wait of 2.5 minutes at the transfer point, for a total of 5 minutes of waiting.

System B has an average wait of 7.5 minutes at your origin in the CBD. So System A is actually 2.5 minutes faster despite requiring a transfer.

A high frequency grid of non-overlapping routes is the best form of transit.

What bus route has 5 minute frequency?

That kind of example is not likely to happen in Ottawa.

What is more likely to happen is that direct route actually will save you time because of the routing alone. In other words, the direct route is actually a straighter line from Point A to B than going through Point C.

You example also assumes that you are not going to look at a schedule before embarking on your trip.

I will give you another example. Route A is direct and runs every 30 minutes. Your average wait time is 15 minutes if you ignore the schedule.
By paying attention to the schedule, you may be able to reduce this to 5 minutes.

Route B runs every 5 minutes and takes you half way home. You wait 2.5 minutes. You have to transfer to Route C that takes you the rest of the way. Because it serves the same neighbourhood as Route A originally did, it still operates on a 30 minute frequency. Average wait time is 15 minutes. So, total wait time is 17.5 minutes. You can also pay attention to the schedule here too, but because of the transfer, you have allow yourself more time in case of delays.

No matter what, your trip (on average) is longer. The only way to make the transfer trip faster is run more buses than you do now.

This is a more likely scenario than the one presented.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What bus route has 5 minute frequency?

That kind of example is not likely to happen in Ottawa.

What is more likely to happen is that direct route actually will save you time because of the routing alone. In other words, the direct route is actually a straighter line from Point A to B than going through Point C.

In the example I gave, the physical routes were identical in the two scenarios.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You example also assumes that you are not going to look at a schedule before embarking on your trip.

A transit system that requires you to slave yourself to a schedule is not a good transit system. The transit system needs to be able to function well with the assumption that riders aren't looking at the schedule.

This is the true value of the high-frequency grid model--it allows fully spontaneous travel.

Furthermore, reliability is so bad that planning around schedules is useless in Ottawa anyway.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will give you another example. Route A is direct and runs every 30 minutes. Your average wait time is 15 minutes if you ignore the schedule.
By paying attention to the schedule, you may be able to reduce this to 5 minutes.

Not valid transit planning logic. Again, you can't require riders to enslave themselves to the schedule. That is a recipe for low ridership.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Route B runs every 5 minutes and takes you half way home. You wait 2.5 minutes. You have to transfer to Route C that takes you the rest of the way. Because it serves the same neighbourhood as Route A originally did, it still operates on a 30 minute frequency. Average wait time is 15 minutes. So, total wait time is 17.5 minutes. You can also pay attention to the schedule here too, but because of the transfer, you have allow yourself more time in case of delays.

That's not the scenario I presented. In the one you presented, A is more optimal, assuming A and B->C have the same in vehicle time (now, if B->C has faster in-vehicle time, like say if the split came about as a result of the B section being upgraded to rapid transit, that's a different story), and assuming that there isn't a large volume of trip demand along the B route that would benefit from the higher frequency.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will give you another example. Route A is direct and runs every 30 minutes. Your average wait time is 15 minutes if you ignore the schedule.
By paying attention to the schedule, you may be able to reduce this to 5 minutes.

Needing to do this is actually an enormous deterrent to transit usage, far far greater than transfers.