Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Sorry for helping to derail the general thread guys!

It's an LRT discussion thread, that's what it's here for!

[Daveography]

^ I hope we're not here for derailing LRTs....

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's down to 10 minutes now, according to CPTDB.

It was a very cheap expansion... something like a $70M upgrade. In total, including the initial setup costs back in 2000, less than $200M of capital has been spent on the whole 8km line to date.

It's cheap, but the returns have been pretty miniscule too.

The 14,300 daily riders would put it squarely at the bottom of all rapid transit lines of any kind in Canada in ridership, and within range of rush hour-only commuter rail lines that receive even less investment.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

It's cheap, but the returns have been pretty miniscule too.

The 14,300 daily riders would put it squarely at the bottom of all rapid transit lines of any kind in Canada in ridership, and within range of rush hour-only commuter rail lines that receive even less investment.

The investment will likely not generate any additional ridership. The flaw with this line is that it doesn't go downtown. Now that they have eliminated that possibility for the future as well, ridership growth will be stunted. The belief by Ottawa city council and most Ottawa posters is that people should be satisfied to transfer twice to reach downtown. I cannot agree. The residents of south Ottawa served by the line will vote with their wallets on this issue and I expect that it will remain a service mainly used by university students.

[1overcosc]

The main flaw is the low frequency, low capacity, and bizarre single track setup that limits reliability.

Direct to downtown would be nice, but it's not the main problem with the Trillium Line.

By that logic, the Bloor-Danforth subway in Toronto and the Blue Line metro in Montreal would be low ridership failures as they do not go directly downtown.

Or put it this way.. suppose we had a binary choice between:
1) a tunnel to extend the Trillium Line into the CBD but retained every single one of the limitations on the existing section of the line
2) upgrading it to Confederation Line standards, terminating at Bayview

Option 2) would generate a lot more ridership than Option 1)

Then again you're the guy who thinks that people would be willing to wait for 30 minutes for a bus that takes forever to get to their destination as long as it's a one seat ride, but the second you make someone transfer, even if that transfer takes less than five minutes and it's to & from high speed lines, nobody will ever ride.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The main flaw is the low frequency, low capacity, and bizarre single track setup that limits reliability.

The single track is the main problem, fix it and you can increase the frequency. I don't know how you can add more trains running on a single track.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by le calmar

The single track is the main problem, fix it and you can increase the frequency. I don't know how you can add more trains running on a single track.

You can't.

Then again, a lot of people would prefer investing in a new segment/new line rather than to improve service/infrastructure (which is a less seductive idea at first). Seriously, with 5 minute frequencies during rush hour and 10 minutes off-peak, a lot more people would be seduced by the Trillium line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The main flaw is the low frequency, low capacity, and bizarre single track setup that limits reliability.

Direct to downtown would be nice, but it's not the main problem with the Trillium Line.

By that logic, the Bloor-Danforth subway in Toronto and the Blue Line metro in Montreal would be low ridership failures as they do not go directly downtown.

Or put it this way.. suppose we had a binary choice between:
1) a tunnel to extend the Trillium Line into the CBD but retained every single one of the limitations on the existing section of the line
2) upgrading it to Confederation Line standards, terminating at Bayview

Option 2) would generate a lot more ridership than Option 1)

Then again you're the guy who thinks that people would be willing to wait for 30 minutes for a bus that takes forever to get to their destination as long as it's a one seat ride, but the second you make someone transfer, even if that transfer takes less than five minutes and it's to & from high speed lines, nobody will ever ride.

I challenge you to find where I said that.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

You can't.

Then again, a lot of people would prefer investing in a new segment/new line rather than to improve service/infrastructure (which is a less seductive idea at first). Seriously, with 5 minute frequencies during rush hour and 10 minutes off-peak, a lot more people would be seduced by the Trillium line.

The existing route upgraded to the frequency suggested will require double tracking and electrification and a considerable investment. That in itself will not generate significant ridership growth unless you also extend it to the growth areas south of the airport. There is limited intensification possibilities along the existing route except at Carling Station. There is almost no intensification possibilities along the planned Phase 2. You need to know the area to understand why. For most downtown riders in the area served by the Trillium line, another route provides better service to downtown. Unless the Trillium Line is extended to downtown, it will not be competitive for those riders.

At the present time, there is some blind hope by Ottawa City Council and transit planners that ridership patterns will change. The Trillium line's limited success from its inauguration was based on riders wishing to bypass downtown, and not to go to downtown. I don't see this changing a great deal unless the southern growth areas are properly connected.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The existing route upgraded to the frequency suggested will require double tracking and electrification and a considerable investment. That in itself will not generate significant ridership growth unless you also extend it to the growth areas south of the airport. There is limited intensification possibilities along the existing route except at Carling Station. There is almost no intensification possibilities along the planned Phase 2.

You are partially correct on this point. If one increases the frequency, usually the ridership increases by more than the increase in service. If the frequency can increase up to a certain point without any increase in equipment then any current unfullifilled demand will can be absorbed by the O Train.

You don't need to electrify at this point to increase frequency. Electrification and CBTC dispatching would be the last things needed to increase frequency. Electrification will really only increase speed so that you can go to higher frequency with few equipment requirements. Electrifying the line in its current configuration would not do anything to speed up the service.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You need to know the area to understand why. For most downtown riders in the area served by the Trillium line, another route provides better service to downtown. Unless the Trillium Line is extended to downtown, it will not be competitive for those riders.

You have a fixation on trying to build a transit network with single seat rides everywhere. That cannot happen. As previously mentioned you can have a transfer from one high frequency line to another high frequency line with little or no penalty for the benefit of the having a larger system such as extending the line to Gatineau. You are also assuming that the buses that currently travel downtown on the transitway will continue to do so from Hurdman after the Confederation line is completed. I don't believe that OC Transpo has even thought about routings and frequency post construction. You may have a situation where you will either transfer to the Confederation line at Hurdman from the bus or at Bayview from the train to get downtown.

The other issue is congestion due to interlining. Just as the buses could not handle the volume of buses throught the core, the LRT system may not be able to handle the volume of train movements through the core with trains from Baseline, Bayshore and the Trillium line all running through the tunnel. Are you then going to say that you would provide single seat rides to southern riders at the expense of single seat rides from Bayshore or Baseline? The interlining of the Bayshore and Baseline makes more operational sense than your proposal.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Trillium line's limited success from its inauguration was based on riders wishing to bypass downtown, and not to go to downtown. I don't see this changing a great deal unless the southern growth areas are properly connected.

If people are bypassing downtown then why do we need a one seat ride? Do you have any proof that this is actual fact such as and origin/destination study done recently?

[GoTrans]

We should move this discussion on the Trillium line to the Ottawa section.

[1overcosc]

Ottawa's Trillium Line crisis is relevant. All it seems people talk about for Ottawa is the Confederation Line and its awesomeness, I'd like it for the Canada section to know about the crap Trillium Line.

Trillium Line's improvement can be done by:
1) Double tracking
2) Extending to Gatineau

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The other issue is congestion due to interlining. Just as the buses could not handle the volume of buses throught the core, the LRT system may not be able to handle the volume of train movements through the core with trains from Baseline, Bayshore and the Trillium line all running through the tunnel. Are you then going to say that you would provide single seat rides to southern riders at the expense of single seat rides from Bayshore or Baseline? The interlining of the Bayshore and Baseline makes more operational sense than your proposal.

Yes, a thousand times yes.

The main reason why the Transitway is such a nightmare is because of all the neighbourhood express routes. There's literally dozens of bus routes on the Transitway and people will clog up the platforms waiting 10-15 minutes for THEIR bus as dozens of other buses pass by.

With the Confederation Line, every train is your train. I'd hate to see Ottawa pollute this with excessive interlining of four or five services in the tunnel.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Trillium Line's improvement can be done by:
1) Double tracking
2) Extending to Gatineau

You are absolutely correct. As I have said numerous times, if we don't have the money to do it all at once, let's at least have a plan as to when we will do it, section by section. All we need then is the political will to stick to the plan. This is not rocket science!!!

[lrt's friend]

You have a fixation on trying to build a transit network with single seat rides everywhere.

Because of my opinion on the Trillium Line, you assume this. But just remember, that you already have to transfer to get on the Trillium Line in the first place with only a small number of exceptions. All I want is to be able to reach downtown with one transfer during all time periods. The Trillium Line as planned will not deliver that to most south end residents. I do not think what I am asking for is unreasonable.

I want the Trillium Line to be a big success and as I pointed out, it is not going to be competitive. So how will it ever move beyond being just a secondary transit line with modest ridership?

We have already seen the situation with Rapibus and the gradual return of Express routes because of the lousy service being delivered by Rapibus in its original configuration. Given the fact that almost everybody will be forced to transfer onto the Confederation Line, how is this not the same scenario that Rapibus created? The Confederation Line does not remotely serve the south sector of the city, yet we will be required to transfer onto the most crowded segment of the route. I can really foresee the same situation that occurred with Rapibus happening and pressure being placed on the city and the transit commission to resume some direct services into downtown, especially from the south end of the city.

The comment has been made about Bayshore versus South Keys. How are they different? The question remains that there should be a degree of equity of service from all major sections of the city. Why should the whole south sector of the city (which is now the fastest growing) permanently receive a second class service in order to reach downtown. The same debate has been in occurring in Toronto regarding Scarborough RT line and it appears that something is finally going to be done about it.

Also, what city of 1,000,000+ creates a single route transit system through downtown as their long-term plan? Other than Ottawa, none of the five biggest cities in Canada are doing this and yet, we have really made no allowances for interprovincial transit at all in our rapid transit plans either. We say, we can't interline yet many cities do so including a much bigger city, San Francisco. We say we can't build a second line into downtown because we cannot look beyond 100% grade separation.

I am looking for what is best for the overall city. I am also looking towards a vibrant Ottawa downtown in the future. The meeting place for Ottawa residents. We are not creating a scenario where that is possible. As I have said, I just returned from Europe and what I saw there for cities bigger and smaller than Ottawa was the number of transit lines that entered the centre of the cities. Whether tramways or subways or whatever, the coverage of direct lines into the city centre was substantial. These cities are not afraid of interlining, often 5 tram routes sharing the same track. No, you don't always get single seat rides, but at least you are limiting the number of transfers.

The Confederation Line is a big step forward for Ottawa, a necessary one, but it is not the end answer towards reversing the decline of downtown Ottawa over the last 50 years. The coverage of the Confederation Line is going to be far too small and most people will not travel downtown if it requires multiple transfers at 10:00 p.m. when connecting routes only run every 30 minutes or 60 minutes. You just have to look at Canada Day or even Red Black Games. Transit is very successful under those conditions because direct service runs to many locations in the city. No, I am not suggesting direct service to every neighbourhood, but it should be much easier to get downtown than what we are planning.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yes, a thousand times yes.

The main reason why the Transitway is such a nightmare is because of all the neighbourhood express routes. There's literally dozens of bus routes on the Transitway and people will clog up the platforms waiting 10-15 minutes for THEIR bus as dozens of other buses pass by.

With the Confederation Line, every train is your train. I'd hate to see Ottawa pollute this with excessive interlining of four or five services in the tunnel.

Yes, I understand that the express bus system has to go, but a single transit line system through downtown is not going to make downtown, Ottawa's meeting place of the future. You are going from one extreme to the other. Dozens of routes to one.

You know, interlining is such a boogey-man concept yet countless cities apply it with great success. It is a necessary concept in many cities because the ability to build additional routes is prohibitive. The situation in San Francisco really parallels Ottawa's situation. San Francisco has to interline because of the cost of building another route under San Francisco Bay is far too expensive. It is very true in Ottawa where we cannot afford to build another tunnel for decades to come. You should read about the history of San Francisco's transit system. The Key system formerly ran on the Oakland Bay Bridge but required transfers at both ends of the bridge. Yes, every train was your train when crossing between San Francisco and Oakland, but it was those extra transfers that soon made it uncompetitive with cars crossing the same bridge and the system closed in 1958 after only 20 years of service. When it was replaced with BART in the 1970s, interlining was used to provide direct service between downtown San Francisco and many parts of Oakland and other suburbs thus eliminating the Key System failure of requiring transfers between Oakland and San Francisco.

I repeat, I don't expect direct service to my door, however, if you want me to make a habit of using transit to travel downtown for events other than for work, I expect transit to offer something that is reasonably convenient. The Confederation Line and Trillium Line combination fails to do so.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Ottawa's Trillium Line crisis is relevant. All it seems people talk about for Ottawa is the Confederation Line and its awesomeness, I'd like it for the Canada section to know about the crap Trillium Line.

Trillium Line's improvement can be done by:
1) Double tracking
2) Extending to Gatineau

Yes, I have heard this countless times, but an extension to Gatineau provides one-way ridership 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM weekdays only. The trains will be empty otherwise. This would be a wasted investment. That long bridge which is such a temptation to use creates further problems since it is only single tracked, something that is so desperately needed to resolve on the rest of the line. It will become a major bottleneck. If you are thinking of a further extension along the Rapibus corridor, how does that address the needs of Gatineau residents? You know this will never sell to Gatineau residents who are finally successfully lobbying to get their express bus routes back again. The Trillium Line extension into Gatineau will NOT be the answer to providing faster service and that is the key. Instead, the service will be slower and less convenient. Building train lines just because it is relatively cheap doesn't mean they should be built.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We have already seen the situation with Rapibus and the gradual return of Express routes because of the lousy service being delivered by Rapibus in its original configuration. Given the fact that almost everybody will be forced to transfer onto the Confederation Line, how is this not the same scenario that Rapibus created? The Confederation Line does not remotely serve the south sector of the city, yet we will be required to transfer onto the most crowded segment of the route. I can really foresee the same situation that occurred with Rapibus happening and pressure being placed on the city and the transit commission to resume some direct services into downtown, especially from the south end of the city.

Big difference: Rapibus was slower on the corridor itself than the service it replaced. The Confederation Line will be faster on the corridor itself than the service it replaced. The ride from Les Promenades (a Rapibus station) to Ottawa increased in travel time. Whereas the ride from Blair or Hurdman to the CBD will be faster. In the case of Blair, dramatically so because of the Hurdman clogups and the slow curves of the East Transitway (that will be both be resolved with LRT conversion).

I don't think the city will even entertain the idea of restoring direct to downtown service for the east or west. For the south, they will probably try a double transfer at Greenboro, then double back to a single transfer at Hurdman due to complaints.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Yes, I have heard this countless times, but an extension to Gatineau provides one-way ridership 7 to 9 AM and 4 to 6 PM weekdays only. The trains will be empty otherwise. This would be a wasted investment. That long bridge which is such a temptation to use creates further problems since it is only single tracked, something that is so desperately needed to resolve on the rest of the line. It will become a major bottleneck. If you are thinking of a further extension along the Rapibus corridor, how does that address the needs of Gatineau residents? You know this will never sell to Gatineau residents who are finally successfully lobbying to get their express bus routes back again. The Trillium Line extension into Gatineau will NOT be the answer to providing faster service and that is the key. Instead, the service will be slower and less convenient. Building train lines just because it is relatively cheap doesn't mean they should be built.

I would extend to Gatineau AFTER double tracking. I don't think any extensions to the Trillium Line should happen at all, anywhere, until the trunk is double tracked.

I wouldn't extend Trillium along the Rapibus corridor. 1) the rapibus already exists, and 2) I agree that it would make for a fairly useless route. I'd extend it across the bridge, then have it turn east into the Gatineau CBD and loop back down to Rideau somehow. That hooks directly into Gatineau's urban core.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Confederation Line is a big step forward for Ottawa, a necessary one, but it is not the end answer towards reversing the decline of downtown Ottawa over the last 50 years. The coverage of the Confederation Line is going to be far too small and most people will not travel downtown if it requires multiple transfers at 10:00 p.m. when connecting routes only run every 30 minutes or 60 minutes. You just have to look at Canada Day or even Red Black Games. Transit is very successful under those conditions because direct service runs to many locations in the city. No, I am not suggesting direct service to every neighbourhood, but it should be much easier to get downtown than what we are planning.

Whether or not the Trillium Line goes directly downtown has nothing to do with the fact that most of the city's land area only has 30-60 minute local bus service. Whether or not a transfer at Bayview is added or removed isn't going to somehow make the 30 minute wait at Greenboro for a bus home any worse or better.