Airport Rail Link

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Dado

If I had it my way, I'd split the western lines not at Lincoln Fields but at Bayview itself: use the Trillium line to Confederation Heights and then on along the VIA corridor clear to Barrhaven. The western line through Westboro would continue on westwards to Bayshore and eventually Kanata. Lincoln Fields to Baseline and indeed Barrhaven could be left as a busway given that it would now be serving mainly "orbital" rather than "radial" traffic. It's a tad absurd for those from Barrhaven to be travelling along two sides of a triangle when the option of travelling along the hypotenuse exists.

You mean hooking up the Barrhaven<->Baseline transitway corridor to the Baseline-Heron BRT, creating a through route from Barrhaven Centre to Confederation Heights?

I'm not a huge fan of using the VIA corridor for high level metro-like transit... there's not enough on it really, it doesn't serve anything meaningful pretty much the whole way from Confederation Heights down to Barrhaven... if it was to be used for local transit at all I'd prefer it to more of a commuter train line or something instead.

There's also the fact that the city would need to build its own set of tracks; VIA uses the track that's there so heavily that only a handful of trains could share its tracks even without the technology-mixing restrictions in place. Heck, VIA's now basically forced to add a second track just for its own trains; it's pursuing a rather bizarre investor deal to get it done in the absence of federal money.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You mean hooking up the Barrhaven<->Baseline transitway corridor to the Baseline-Heron BRT, creating a through route from Barrhaven Centre to Confederation Heights?

I'm not a huge fan of using the VIA corridor for high level metro-like transit... there's not enough on it really, it doesn't serve anything meaningful pretty much the whole way from Confederation Heights down to Barrhaven... if it was to be used for local transit at all I'd prefer it to more of a commuter train line or something instead.

There's also the fact that the city would need to build its own set of tracks; VIA uses the track that's there so heavily that only a handful of trains could share its tracks even without the technology-mixing restrictions in place. Heck, VIA's now basically forced to add a second track just for its own trains; it's pursuing a rather bizarre investor deal to get it done in the absence of federal money.

I agree with this but also for some further reasons.

What we will be creating a triple branched line in addition to the branch at Bayview. Confederation Heights to Barrhaven, Confederation Heights to the Airport, Confederation Heights to Bowesville (Riverside South). The end result is inadequate service levels on any of the branches.

The cost of triple branches is also going to be excessive. We have to build out in too many directions. We are seeing that a short branch to the airport alone will cost $155M and that is single tracked without electrification. How much will it cost to build the track from Confederation Heights to Barrhaven? $1B? more?

And then there are all the considerations of VIA Rail, who are not going to want to share track when they are trying to add service and speed up trains.

Of course, you are also right that corridor from Confederation Heights to Barrhaven is much too low density with too little potential to really justify building track all that distance with the hope of generating passengers almost entirely at the few stations at the end of the line. I would rather invest money on a cross-town DMU service on existing track that may actually get more people to leave their cars at home.

There was logic to the old N-S route which offered service to both Riverside South and Barrhaven. It built the minimum amount of track to service both communities.

For that same reason, I do support the branch at Bayview as that branch will ultimately serve a much greater population than the Baseline branch. And we know, that an extension from Baseline to Barrhaven is going to be expensive. with the issues between Baseline and Hunt Club. There is absolutely nobody pushing that extension in the foreseeable future, which leaves the original route much more feasible to accomplish.

It doesn't mean that I don't support a build out to Barrhaven from Baseline in the long-term, but I see that as a long-term project.

Back to the original topic, if we really want to make the airport spur a success, we need to double track at least from this spur north to Bayview and ideally with a no transfer connection to downtown. We all know that there is a limited market for the airport and as we add each transfer, the number of users will decline rapidly. Eliminating those transfers and properly building up the central part of the Trillium Line has to part of the ultimate plan or we are creating a white elephant that will have minimal fare box return in comparison to cost. As it stands, the current plan will be even less competitive with taxis, Uber and limousine services than Route 97 that currently offers a no transfer service to downtown hotels.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You mean hooking up the Barrhaven<->Baseline transitway corridor to the Baseline-Heron BRT, creating a through route from Barrhaven Centre to Confederation Heights?

Well there'd be a hub at Baseline. It would basically remain as it is from Lincoln Fields to Baseline and to Barrhaven-Fallowfield, with the Baseline-Heron BRT added whenever.

It wouldn't go to Barrhaven Centre by way of the new transitway in Barrhaven though: it would take some other route to the Riverside-Barrhaven BRT.

I'm not a huge fan of using the VIA corridor for high level metro-like transit... there's not enough on it really, it doesn't serve anything meaningful pretty much the whole way from Confederation Heights down to Barrhaven... if it was to be used for local transit at all I'd prefer it to more of a commuter train line or something instead.

There's the Colonade business park, and the Auriga-area business park, both of which would get service which they don't have now.

There's also the fact that the city would need to build its own set of tracks; VIA uses the track that's there so heavily that only a handful of trains could share its tracks even without the technology-mixing restrictions in place. Heck, VIA's now basically forced to add a second track just for its own trains; it's pursuing a rather bizarre investor deal to get it done in the absence of federal money.

Right, well building extra tracks in a railway RoW is A LOT easier than doing so in a whole new RoW because the existing tracks can be used to deliver materials to right where its needed. Both Edmonton and Calgary have done exactly that.

If LRT is to eventually make it to Barrhaven, then we either build a bunch of new RoW from Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven - disrupting the buses yet again as we do so - or we do it largely in existing railway RoWs, which happen to be shorter in total length anyway.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I agree with this but also for some further reasons.

What we will be creating a triple branched line in addition to the branch at Bayview. Confederation Heights to Barrhaven, Confederation Heights to the Airport, Confederation Heights to Bowesville (Riverside South). The end result is inadequate service levels on any of the branches.

Where are you getting this "triple branched line" thing from? Definitely not from what I wrote before.

From the Downtown tunnel heading west and branching at Bayview, there'd be:

1. to Westboro, Bayshore, Kanata
2. to Confederation Heights, Nepean, Barrhaven

From the Downtown tunnel heading east and branching at Hurdman, there'd be:

3. to St. Laurent, Gloucester, Orleans
4. to Confederation Heights, Greenboro, Airport/Riverside South

That's a double branched system, not triple.

The cost of triple branches is also going to be excessive. We have to build out in too many directions. We are seeing that a short branch to the airport alone will cost $155M and that is single tracked without electrification. How much will it cost to build the track from Confederation Heights to Barrhaven? $1B? more?

Less than the cost of building from Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven, because the existing tracks can be used for construction material delivery. For instance, instead of welding 40' sections of track together on site, we 400 yd sections of track delivered exactly where needed.

And then there are all the considerations of VIA Rail, who are not going to want to share track when they are trying to add service and speed up trains.

Well add the two extra tracks to the corridor, just like many other cities have done for their LRT systems. Most other cities love to use railway RoWs for LRT because it makes everything easier, but the busway mentality so dominates thinking here - including, bizarrely, someone who terms himself "lrt's friend" - that every contrived excuse is conjured up not to use them.

Of course, you are also right that corridor from Confederation Heights to Barrhaven is much too low density with too little potential to really justify building track all that distance with the hope of generating passengers almost entirely at the few stations at the end of the line. I would rather invest money on a cross-town DMU service on existing track that may actually get more people to leave their cars at home.

And just how much extra passengers do you think you're going to get on the Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven run of the current plan? The Woodroffe Ave corridor has precious little south of Baseline and lots of costs (notably Knoxdale to Hunt Club). At least the diagonal of the VIA corridor cuts across Merivale and Prince of Wales, allowing feeder buses from eastern Barrhaven to intersect the rapid transit line rather than "back track" to Fallowfield.

There was logic to the old N-S route which offered service to both Riverside South and Barrhaven. It built the minimum amount of track to service both communities.

That is absolute rubbish, and you know it because we've been through this countless times. It didn't even cut a straight line through Riverside South or Barrhaven, so how one can argue it builds the minimum amount of track with a straight face is beyond me.

The VIA corridor cuts across at a diagonal. Both the current BRT routing by way of Lincoln Fields and the N-S LRT by way of Riverside South go around two sides of a triangle compared to the more hypotenuse-like route of the VIA corridor.

[Radster]

[QUOTE=ACmodels;7090215]City leaving it up to others to fund airport spur

BY JON WILLING, OTTAWA SUN
FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:12 PM EDT | UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:17 PM EDT

the city won't contribute money for a rail line to the Ottawa International Airport.
/QUOTE]

I have a suspicion that its mainly because the city just doesn't want to piss off the taxi union at this point in time, seeing how there is already a big karfuffle with UBER. Adding an LRT airport connection would just add more fuel to the fire, because it will end the taxi monopoly at the airport.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Where are you getting this "triple branched line" thing from? Definitely not from what I wrote before.

From the Downtown tunnel heading west and branching at Bayview, there'd be:

1. to Westboro, Bayshore, Kanata
2. to Confederation Heights, Nepean, Barrhaven

From the Downtown tunnel heading east and branching at Hurdman, there'd be:

3. to St. Laurent, Gloucester, Orleans
4. to Confederation Heights, Greenboro, Airport/Riverside South

That's a double branched system, not triple.



Less than the cost of building from Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven, because the existing tracks can be used for construction material delivery. For instance, instead of welding 40' sections of track together on site, we 400 yd sections of track delivered exactly where needed.



Well add the two extra tracks to the corridor, just like many other cities have done for their LRT systems. Most other cities love to use railway RoWs for LRT because it makes everything easier, but the busway mentality so dominates thinking here - including, bizarrely, someone who terms himself "lrt's friend" - that every contrived excuse is conjured up not to use them.



And just how much extra passengers do you think you're going to get on the Lincoln Fields to Barrhaven run of the current plan? The Woodroffe Ave corridor has precious little south of Baseline and lots of costs (notably Knoxdale to Hunt Club). At least the diagonal of the VIA corridor cuts across Merivale and Prince of Wales, allowing feeder buses from eastern Barrhaven to intersect the rapid transit line rather than "back track" to Fallowfield.



That is absolute rubbish, and you know it because we've been through this countless times. It didn't even cut a straight line through Riverside South or Barrhaven, so how one can argue it builds the minimum amount of track with a straight face is beyond me.

The VIA corridor cuts across at a diagonal. Both the current BRT routing by way of Lincoln Fields and the N-S LRT by way of Riverside South go around two sides of a triangle compared to the more hypotenuse-like route of the VIA corridor.

I understand the desire to have a direct line, but it is still a very low density corridor towards Fallowfield from Confederation Heights. There is really no major intersecting bus route other than at Merivale Road. And really, there is not that much back tracking as Route 94 serves much of eastern Barrhaven and goes on a direct line north to Fallowfield Station.

As far as the amount of track required, you are building completely new track between Hurdman to Confederation Heights, and from Confederation Heights to Barrhaven. Many structures will have to replaced in order to handle 3 or 4 tracks on the VIA rail corridor, and you have to wonder if at-grade crossings will continue to be allowed at Merivale Road and Woodroffe Avenue with that many sets of tracks. The original N-S proposal extended track from Riverside South to Barrhaven Centre, a relatively short distance and at minimal cost.

The city has been developing ridership on both the N-S route and the Woodroffe Route, which also helps justify future conversion to rail. Also, a VIA route actually becomes a third rapid transit route into Barrhaven. The other two already exist in some form and they will continue to exist even if the VIA corridor was used. I don't know how that can be justified when other parts of the city will not have any convenient rapid transit service. The city has also been developing ridership on the existing Trillium Line corridor, which you propose to reroute at Confederation Heights. No longer will it be a few minute ride for Carleton students to shopping at South Keys or anywhere else. That is one of the reasons why the Trillium Line became popular so fast.

[lrt's friend]

[QUOTE=Radster;7091194]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

City leaving it up to others to fund airport spur

BY JON WILLING, OTTAWA SUN
FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:12 PM EDT | UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 06:17 PM EDT

the city won't contribute money for a rail line to the Ottawa International Airport.
/QUOTE]

I have a suspicion that its mainly because the city just doesn't want to piss off the taxi union at this point in time, seeing how there is already a big karfuffle with UBER. Adding an LRT airport connection would just add more fuel to the fire, because it will end the taxi monopoly at the airport.

I don't think it is so much that, but the very limited ridership that will be using the spur. Also, the bulk of the ridership will be visitors from out of town who are not paying property taxes to Ottawa. In other words, why should Ottawa taxpayers pay for visitors? Let's face it, this spur is not going to be very convenient if you are going to the airport from Barrhaven or Kanata or Orleans. I live very close to the airport and I wouldn't use it. I still have to take the bus to get to it.

I am not against rail service to the airport but the people who benefiting the most should pay. That is the airport authority and the higher levels of government.

[eemy]

They could always just make the single-ride fair from the airport higher to compensate.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think it is so much that, but the very limited ridership that will be using the spur. Also, the bulk of the ridership will be visitors from out of town who are not paying property taxes to Ottawa. In other words, why should Ottawa taxpayers pay for visitors? Let's face it, this spur is not going to be very convenient if you are going to the airport from Barrhaven or Kanata or Orleans. I live very close to the airport and I wouldn't use it. I still have to take the bus to get to it.

I am not against rail service to the airport but the people who benefiting the most should pay. That is the airport authority and the higher levels of government.

Are you for real? Visitors leave millions of dollars in Ottawa every week; sums which one way or an other contribute to taxes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Are you for real? Visitors leave millions of dollars in Ottawa every week; sums which one way or an other contribute to taxes.

Yes and I do support the rail link, but I also support the city in trying to get the funding from the higher levels of government. The taxes that we collect from visitors mostly go to the Provincial and federal governments.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Are you for real? Visitors leave millions of dollars in Ottawa every week; sums which one way or an other contribute to taxes.

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.

[YOWetal]

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.

3 trains? For those near a station the transfer shouldn't be a big deal, it's pretty standard in most of the world.

We might as well as say let's ditch transit as most people would prefer a 20 minute car ride.

[lrt's friend]

I don't get this obsession with Uber. How can Uber provide better service at the airport compared to taxis that are lined up for you to leave immediately? With Uber, you have to arrange for a car to pick you up. This seems a whole lot less convenient. Uber cannot have cars waiting at the airport. If it did, it would automatically be considered a taxi service.

This free for all that so many want for the sake of competition has its disadvantages and this is one of them. Same applies to the train station or the bus station or anywhere where taxi stands exist and are ready for immediate service.

And then as pointed out in Friday's Ottawa Citizen, are all the Uber drivers really properly covered by insurance? The question was about personal car insurance and when Uber's insurance kicks in and whether the driver should have commercial insurance?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

3 trains? For those near a station the transfer shouldn't be a big deal, it's pretty standard in most of the world.

We might as well as say let's ditch transit as most people would prefer a 20 minute car ride.

Hmmm, how much is transit modal share? I think that is the answer to your question.

When you consider that 3 trains is to take you on the most simple trip to downtown hotels, how convenient is it if you are going somewhere else in the city? It is a hopeless option.

Also, for a stranger to the city, if presented with a 3 train option that still require a 2 or 3 block walk to your hotel, or a single door to door trip by cab, which option will most choose?

We have to be realistic about how useful this is.

Many cities have single seat trips from the airport to downtown. Toronto, Vancouver, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco to name a few. With that option, it makes transit attractive.

[Buggys]

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.

Visitors are less likely to have a friend's/family's car waiting for them. Public transit will likely be cheaper for visitors than taxi/Uber, even if there's a premium for the airport spur vs the rest of the transit system.

[Innsertnamehere]

from a toronto perspective this transfer seems to be beyond a hugely overblown issue. It will never become another bloor-yonge, passenger volumes will never be close to coming close to that.

Transferring trains is pretty standard globally.

And how would it be a 3 train ride to downtown? Ottawa is only planning to have 2 train lines as far as I know, it couldnt be a 3 train ride even if they wanted it to be..

[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.

[eemy]

The three train suggestion is due to how the airport service has been proposed for the Trillium Line. Non-peak service would travel to the airport with a shuttle departing from Greenboro serving Riverside South. Peak service would travel to Riverside South with a shuttle serving the airport. Therefore, travellers heading downtown at peak periods would have to take the shuttle to Greenboro, transfer to a train heading to Bayview, and then transfer onto the Confederation Line into downtown. The plan has pretty much been universally panned as ill-conceived and I'm pretty sure it would be disastrous if actually implemented.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Visitors are less likely to have a friend's/family's car waiting for them. Public transit will likely be cheaper for visitors than taxi/Uber, even if there's a premium for the airport spur vs the rest of the transit system.

Could you imagine being the hotel concierge that has to explain this?

1. Ignore the signs that say "taxi" visible when you pick up your luggage, those will cost an extra $20.
2. Go up three floors.
3. Take the bridge to the parking garage
4. [Not sure exactly where the connection would be]
5. If it is rushhour [and the riverside trains run directly to bayview] wait for a train, it will take you to a Walmart.
6. Get off at Walmart. Walk to another platform, wait for another train.
7. Take this train to a station called "Bayview" it is in the middle of a field, there is no bay in site.
8. Go [up/down] the escalators, get on another train in the Direction of Blair.
9. This train will take you downtown where you will have to walk/bus/taxi to your hotel.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Transferring trains is pretty standard globally.

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).