Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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

Unless you’re standing immediately in front of those condos it certainly looks that way.

That’s obviously a temporary situation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

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.

I am pretty sure consultations with industry at the time recommended a light metro, including because it was cheaper and the city ignored the recommendation and went with trams not well suited to the task. This was home grown stupidity, not circumstances that forced the city’s hand.

[Truenorth00]

LRVs are actually more expensive than metro vehicles. You have to design them to run on roads and crash into cars. No such worries for metros.

The only reason why metro systems are usually more expensive, is because the width drives requirements for larger tunnels. And a lot of operators have a tendency to just build metro stations much larger than are functionally required.

In those pre-definition consultations, several OEMs recommended metros. Though if I recall correctly, Kinkinsharyo was the only one to suggest a fully automated system with enclosed stations. The ones that suggested using LRVs suggested that doing so, only made sense in a concept of mixed operations, where the LRT did eventually run on the street, like the Eglinton Crosstown will in Toronto. We bizarrely built a system designed to run on the street with no intention of ever running on the street.

If we actually wanted to make lemonade out of the lemons here, we would actually move to street operation in the burbs, just as the system was designed for. Save a whole lot of money on that Barrhaven extension, by running it down Woodroffe. Did we really need full grade separation in Orleans? They could have run them down St. Joseph.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We bizarrely built a system designed to run on the street with no intention of ever running on the street.

At the time of the RFP, that was still the intention or at least a major option. It was only later once things were rolling that any thought of at-grade stopped, finishing with the 2013 crash.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Would the PSD of the Montreal Metro and the Toronto Subway be the same dimensions and distance between them? They are both metros.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Catenary

At the time of the RFP, that was still the intention or at least a major option. It was only later once things were rolling that any thought of at-grade stopped, finishing with the 2013 crash.

Which sort of speaks to how ridiculous our city can be with its decision making. A double decker bus was hit by a VIA train at a grade crossing. So this means we should get rid of trams on streets? What? Can you imagine a similar crash anywhere else resulting in the same reaction?

Just imagine a TTC bus and VIA train colliding and Toronto deciding that henceforth all higher order transit will be grade separated. Cost being completely disregarded.

That history aside though, what should be concerning is that they are still planning to spend billions on fully grade separating the Kanata and Barrhaven extensions when they just don't need the capacity. We have trams. We should use them on the streets where capacity doesn't require grade separation. And spend the saved money elsewhere.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Would the PSD of the Montreal Metro and the Toronto Subway be the same dimensions and distance between them? They are both metros.

Not sure. REM is being built as a light/medium metro and I'm sure that drives certain dimensions. I don't think the Ontario Line has necessarily committed to a light metro yet. They've just committed to driverless. I would assume how the spacing works depends on whether they go with heavy or medium metro systems.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Catenary

At the time of the RFP, that was still the intention or at least a major option. It was only later once things were rolling that any thought of at-grade stopped, finishing with the 2013 crash.

The City's original intention to run on the long and winding Ottawa River Parkway is one such example of why they went with low-floor at the time.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Would the PSD of the Montreal Metro and the Toronto Subway be the same dimensions and distance between them? They are both metros.

Truenorth00 has a point that if you're building a brand new system, it's easy to include PSDs and buy adapted rolling stock. As the fleet evolves, you just buy new trains that fit within those existing PSDs.

Retrofitting is always far more complicated. Toronto runs two different models. So does Montreal. Vancouver has three (?) on Expo/Millennium and a bunch of different configurations.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Did we really need full grade separation in Orleans? They could have run them down St. Joseph.

I don't think St. Joseph would have been any cheaper. With the 174, we're still building at grade. We just needed to shift the highway slightly to fit the RoW and make some minor ramp reconfigurations. The 174/Montreal interchange is the only major work needed. On St. Joseph, it would have caused major disruptions, all intersections/lights/turning circles would have been rebuilt, connection to Place d'Orleans existing terminal would have been complicated or impossible, sewers and water mains would need to have been changed earlier than needed, increasing the price and extending the timeline. The 174 median was likely the cheapest, fastest and easiest way. It also provides a more equitable service to both sides of the highway.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which sort of speaks to how ridiculous our city can be with its decision making. A double decker bus was hit by a VIA train at a grade crossing. So this means we should get rid of trams on streets? What? Can you imagine a similar crash anywhere else resulting in the same reaction?

That history aside though, what should be concerning is that they are still planning to spend billions on fully grade separating the Kanata and Barrhaven extensions when they just don't need the capacity. We have trams. We should use them on the streets where capacity doesn't require grade separation. And spend the saved money elsewhere.

I kind of agree here. Ban at-grade crossings for the O-Train, but not the double decker buses?

On the other hand, the at grade Carling streetcar is still on the table, so it's not a full ban.

That said, I agree with the City that the current O-Train network should continue full grade separated. Not because of the VIA crash, but because the line is so long that adding at grade section could effect reliability.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Again, I kind of agree here. Ban at-grade crossings for the O-Train, but not the double decker buses?

On the other hand, the at grade Carling streetcar is still on the table, so it's not a full ban.

Which sort of shows you how weirdly inconsistent their logic is.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That said, I agree with the City that the current O-Train network should continue full grade separated. Not because of the VIA crash, but because the line is so long that adding at grade section could effect reliability.

Grade separation is needed in the central portion both because of capacity and reliability. It's not really needed at the periphery though. Yes, there could be some effect on reliability in the suburbs. Is it worth the billions though? That is the question.

Consider the opportunity cost here. Not having full grade separation (there are still some portions where it was to be done) would save billions. Enough to build, for example, your hypothetical Bank subway (or at least make a substantial downpayment). Is the rather small gains on reliability in suburban rail service worth a Bank subway for example? I think not.

We might have tied our own hands by building a fully grade separated solution in Orleans. I accept that sad reality. But we should at least understand what the implications are here.

[roger1818]

I'm curious which crossings you would leave at grade? In the Stage 3 plans, I don't see very many that could reasonably be kept at grade. I would rather see billions saved by not extending the O-Train beyond Terry Fox or Fallowfield and using BRT beyond those stations.

[Truenorth00]

I look at the Fallowfield-Barrhaven Centre portion for example. If it's to be built, why grade separate? Just put gates across Berrigan and turn the entire portion south of Strandherd into an at-grade tramway. The fundamental problem with Barrhaven is that all the high and medium density development will not be near Fallowfield. Using buses then racks up a whole lot of passenger-miles on lower efficiency buses. Kanata does marginally (not by much though) better on this with a Terry Fox terminus.

It's going to be a tough decision. If people have long bus rides to Fallowfield and Terry Fox, are they just likely to drive anyway? And can Barrhaven Centre develop into a proper dense node without LRT? On the other hand you build right to Strandherd and Hazeldean and do you end up with people moving even further away to Carp and Richmond?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not sure. REM is being built as a light/medium metro and I'm sure that drives certain dimensions. I don't think the Ontario Line has necessarily committed to a light metro yet. They've just committed to driverless. I would assume how the spacing works depends on whether they go with heavy or medium metro systems.

You said:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

So, I brought up existing metros. I wanted you to see that the problem is not whether they built the Confed line as a metro or not, but that metro does not mean PSDs are that simple to install.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Truenorth00 has a point that if you're building a brand new system, it's easy to include PSDs and buy adapted rolling stock. As the fleet evolves, you just buy new trains that fit within those existing PSDs.

Retrofitting is always far more complicated. Toronto runs two different models. So does Montreal. Vancouver has three (?) on Expo/Millennium and a bunch of different configurations.

That didn't seem like his point. It seemed line that not using metro type cars makes it difficult for PSDs. That is why asking about the 2 metro systems in Canada and their dimensions matter.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I look at the Fallowfield-Barrhaven Centre portion for example. If it's to be built, why grade separate? Just put gates across Berrigan and turn the entire portion south of Strandherd into an at-grade tramway. The fundamental problem with Barrhaven is that all the high and medium density development will not be near Fallowfield. Using buses then racks up a whole lot of passenger-miles on lower efficiency buses.

That is why I said not to extend the O-Train beyond Terry Fox or Fallowfield. Even if they did extend it to Barrhaven Centre, most of the grade separations are already complete. Berrigan is one of the very few exceptions (the only other two I see are within the Marketplace Mall parking lot). I don't see how billions can be saved by removing only 3 grade separations.

Kanata does marginally (not by much though) better on this with a Terry Fox terminus.

The cost differential between building to Eagleson vs. Terry Fox is miniscule since it is only about 2km from the new Eagleson/Terron Station and Terry Fox Station and all of the grade separations have already been built.

I can't help but wonder though if for the Kanata extension, they would be better off abandoning the pedestrian overpass to the Park and Rides at the new Eagleson/Terron Station and then use that money saved (and made from selling the land) to build a parking garage at Terry Fox Park and Ride.

It's going to be a tough decision. If people have long bus rides to Fallowfield and Terry Fox, are they just likely to drive anyway? And can Barrhaven Centre develop into a proper dense node without LRT? On the other hand you build right to Strandherd and Hazeldean and do you end up with people moving even further away to Carp and Richmond?

The thing is, unlike Orleans, which has been confined by the Ottawa River to the north and the Mer Bleue Bog to the south, Kanata and Barrhaven, have been spreading in 3 different directions, so extending in one of those directions would only be benefitial to a minority of those suburban residents. As a result, the extension suffers badly from the law of demnishing returns once you get into the suburb.

Interstingly, looking at where most of the growth is in Kanata/Stittsville is, if the EA hadn't had a requirement that the route must serve the CTC, extending through Bells Corners, along the old CPR line might have made more sense. I beleive it was the need to curl north to serve the CTC that killed the route.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You said:



So, I brought up existing metros. I wanted you to see that the problem is not whether they built the Confed line as a metro or not, but that metro does not mean PSDs are that simple to install.



That didn't seem like his point. It seemed line that not using metro type cars makes it difficult for PSDs. That is why asking about the 2 metro systems in Canada and their dimensions matter.

This is nonsensical. You asked whether the Toronto and Montreal subways had the same spacing for PSDs. What exactly does this have to with difficulty of installation?

The problem with LRVs is that their geometry (usually driven by turn radius on roads) tends to give them an uneven door spacing or different numbers of doors per car, which makes specifying any sort of universal PSD system difficult. To make things worse, OC Transpo itself would actually run different configurations for a while where the doors didn't even line up with their own platform makings.

Metro systems tend to have evenly spaced doors and the same number of doors per car. This is what makes deploying PSDs easy for metro systems. And as long as both systems stick to whatever category of rolling stock they buy, they won't have much of issue getting rolling stock that fits their existing platform doors.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is nonsensical. You asked whether the Toronto and Montreal subways had the same spacing for PSDs. What exactly does this have to with difficulty of installation?

The problem with LRVs is that their geometry (usually driven by turn radius on roads) tends to give them an uneven door spacing or different numbers of doors per car, which makes specifying any sort of universal PSD system difficult. To make things worse, OC Transpo itself would actually run different configurations for a while where the doors didn't even line up with their own platform makings.

Metro systems tend to have evenly spaced doors and the same number of doors per car. This is what makes deploying PSDs easy for metro systems. And as long as both systems stick to whatever category of rolling stock they buy, they won't have much of issue getting rolling stock that fits their existing platform doors.

So, it would not matter where each door is placed on a subway, they all line up? Why would an LRV not be able to do this as well? I understand the ones on the line currently are not designed that way, but there really is no reason that it couldn't be done.

So, talking Subway cars. The TTC has had a few in it's lifetime. Are you saying the original ones would also line up with the current Rockets?

LRVs are not the problem. Future planning and future proofing is.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, it would not matter where each door is placed on a subway, they all line up? Why would an LRV not be able to do this as well?

What matters is consistency. Metro cars (both light and subway) are usually designed as modular and have the same number of doors per car and consistent spacing. So with the exception of the cab cars at either end, all the cars in the train are completely swappable.

LRVs tend to mix modules to achieve a certain capacity and length and turning radius. You can see this on the Confederation Line, where the Citadis Spirit uses two cab modules with two doors, one intermediate module with two doors and one long centre module with one door. And of course two trains are paired so there's the discontinuity there too.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I understand the ones on the line currently are not designed that way, but there really is no reason that it couldn't be done.

It has to be a design goal from the start. So that different modules aren't used. Of course, most LRT operators don't bother with this because they usually aren't using trams to build a metro. It'd be like putting platform screen doors at streetcar stops in Toronto.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, talking Subway cars. The TTC has had a few in it's lifetime. Are you saying the original ones would also line up with the current Rockets?

They should. And if they don't, they most certainly will in the future. Most railmakers now design their base rolling stock, especially on metro cars, with the specific flexibility to move the doors around to meet whatever barrier configuration is already there.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

LRVs are not the problem. Future planning and future proofing is.

Well yes. Their specification of a tram metro and then allowance of an inconsistent configuration is indicative of poor planning and a lack of foresight.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What matters is consistency. Metro cars (both light and subway) are usually designed as modular and have the same number of doors per car and consistent spacing. So with the exception of the cab cars at either end, all the cars in the train are completely swappable.

LRVs tend to mix modules to achieve a certain capacity and length and turning radius. You can see this on the Confederation Line, where the Citadis Spirit uses two cab modules with two doors, one intermediate module with two doors and one long centre module with one door. And of course two trains are paired so there's the discontinuity there too.

Are you saying the Boston Green line and the San Diego Trolley, or even the C-train and ETS don't have swappable cars? The reality is that LRVs tend to be more expandable easier, but not quickly. However to say that the metro cars are universally shaped, or even the spacing between doors, including the last door to last door is universal is a stretch. However, if you wish to post the measurements to prove it, I and others will welcome it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It has to be a design goal from the start. So that different modules aren't used. Of course, most LRT operators don't bother with this because they usually aren't using trams to build a metro. It'd be like putting platform screen doors at streetcar stops in Toronto.

When building new, all of this can be taken into consideration. I'd argue that retrofitting PSDs on the streetcars, subways or metros, or any existing RT regardless of vehicles would be a challenge.

But then, so is getting cars to match the gauge of track. When Toronto get's rid of its streetcars, if Ottawa wanted them to add frequency, they couldn't. They would be the wrong gauge. Doesn't make getting new TTC streetcars any harder. So, if a PSD equipped system wants cars that have doors spaced a certain way, the manufacturer simply adjusts things for it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They should. And if they don't, they most certainly will in the future. Most railmakers now design their base rolling stock, especially on metro cars, with the specific flexibility to move the doors around to meet whatever barrier configuration is already there.

Can you cite examples?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Well yes. Their specification of a tram metro and then allowance of an inconsistent configuration is indicative of poor planning and a lack of foresight.

So, your complaint is the future planning, not the vehicles.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I look at the Fallowfield-Barrhaven Centre portion for example. If it's to be built, why grade separate? Just put gates across Berrigan and turn the entire portion south of Strandherd into an at-grade tramway. The fundamental problem with Barrhaven is that all the high and medium density development will not be near Fallowfield. Using buses then racks up a whole lot of passenger-miles on lower efficiency buses. Kanata does marginally (not by much though) better on this with a Terry Fox terminus.

If we add any intersections to Confederation, it compromises speed and frequencies. The semi-automated line can reach frequencies of under 2 minutes (slide 11), and that's without PSDs.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which sort of speaks to how ridiculous our city can be with its decision making. A double decker bus was hit by a VIA train at a grade crossing. So this means we should get rid of trams on streets? What? Can you imagine a similar crash anywhere else resulting in the same reaction?

Just imagine a TTC bus and VIA train colliding and Toronto deciding that henceforth all higher order transit will be grade separated. Cost being completely disregarded.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I kind of agree here. Ban at-grade crossings for the O-Train, but not the double decker buses?

On the other hand, the at grade Carling streetcar is still on the table, so it's not a full ban.

That said, I agree with the City that the current O-Train network should continue full grade separated. Not because of the VIA crash, but because the line is so long that adding at grade section could effect reliability.

I believe at-grade was basically off the table before the crash, it just cemented that it would be politically difficult at that stage.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If we add any intersections to Confederation, it compromises speed and frequencies. The semi-automated line can reach frequencies of under 2 minutes (slide 11), and that's without PSDs.

Doesn't really say that on the slide. But that aside, the branches will never have 2 min headways anyway. So it's an alright risk to not have them be fully segregated.