The future of Ottawa's Transit

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

This isn't conclusive evidence, but all the Trillium Line rail I've seen was stamped 2001, and I was always under the impression that it was replaced in full (tunnels and bridges excepted) shortly after opening. When the line opened, it was jointed rail and service was every 20 minutes. Upgrading to CWR got them to the 15 minute service that lasted until the changes in 2013-2015.

According to Colin Churcher's Railway Pages, the track was replaced with CWR in 2004. I am not sure how much this cost, but it certainly wasn't included in the initial $21 million.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to Colin Churcher's Railway Pages, the track was replaced with CWR in 2004. I am not sure how much this cost, but it certainly wasn't included in the initial $21 million.

This was my memory of the what happened. The line opened with 20 minute service. The track was replaced at additional cost (welded rail installed) a few years later which allowed service frequency to be improved to 15 minutes. The additional passing tracks were added when the LINT trains were purchased and the service upgraded to 12 minutes in 2016.

As far as a cross-town rail line, I would say that 15 minute frequency and LINT trains would suffice. I also wonder whether at-grade crossings would also be adequate so long as the trains were given absolute priority and the crossings were well protected. This does seem work in many other cities. Certainly, grade separation would be needed where traffic is heavy and when train frequency was high, but I would not consider 15 minute frequency as high frequency. The biggest extra cost will be dealing with VIA trains crossing the Rideau River between Wass and Federal Junctions and providing safe segregated track for a cross-town line through that section. I don't think double tracking between South Keys and just north of Greenboro to create an airport link would be a deal breaker, if we thought that a better airport connection would be advantageous to the city as a whole. If we really wanted to keep costs down, we could simply place the east terminus station immediately west of the Trillium Line crossing with a walkway from Greenboro Station. It is only the length of the Greenboro Park n Ride lot between the existing station and the crossing track. Not ideal but it is a walkable distance.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to Colin Churcher's Railway Pages, the track was replaced with CWR in 2004. I am not sure how much this cost, but it certainly wasn't included in the initial $21 million.

This lines up with what I knew as well. I'm not 100% confident on the date stamp on the rail either - it may have actually been 2003 or 2004 and I misremember, or that it was installed a couple years after production. Regardless, it's correct that it wasn't in the original cost and was done when the line began to be more permanent and less of a trial.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to Colin Churcher's Railway Pages, the track was replaced with CWR in 2004. I am not sure how much this cost, but it certainly wasn't included in the initial $21 million.

Ah... I read about the 2013 updates below and took the reference to track improvements to mean the upgrade to continuously welded rail... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilli...e_improvements

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Ah... I read about the 2013 updates below and took the reference to track improvements to mean the upgrade to continuously welded rail... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilli...e_improvements

Other than the addition of sidings, some maintenance, and possibly a new diamond at the VIA crossing, I'm unaware of any significant changes in 2013 to the track throughout. The only other change which was a big improvement was straightening the Bayview curve with the hydro pole now gone.

2017 saw more improvements, including the replacement of track at the Walkley spur, reactivation of the south connecting track and the line's first concrete ties.

[OCCheetos]

At some point I believe the curve on the southern approach to the Rideau River bridge was also adjusted. I can't remember the year though.

[Richard Eade]

I asked the question, in the OC Transpo thread, about what people would propose as changes to Ottawa’s transit system, if they were asked to do so by a new Mayor. Since I am adding to my response, I am moving to this thread, so as not to drag the other off topic.

In general, I would like to see a plan to run higher-order transit along main lines to connect general areas of the city. These could be BRT, trams/LRT in dedicated lanes, or subways. This would allow people to quickly get to any general area; then they would take a local bus or walk.



In the above diagram, the red line is already under construction – except I have also added some, but not all, of Stage 3. I’m not convinced that the western-most extension through Stittsville is warranted.

The dark blue line is the Baseline BRT concept – except, I have changed the western end to be a bi-directional loop. Alternate buses will go the opposite direction around the loop. The same alternating-direction-around-the-loop idea is used on the fuchsia line in the east end. (And, potentially, the green line in Barrhaven. See that option, below.)

For that fuchsia line, I have assumed a new bridge across the Rideau River, connecting Montreal Road to Daly Ave. This is still close to the main street (Rideau), but makes a connection to Sussex easier.

The light blue line is what I am calling the Carleton Line. Despite lrt’s friend’s suggestion to connect the Bank Street Subway (the yellow line) to the airport, I resisted. Yes, it would be nice to have a direct (no-transfer) connection between the airport and downtown, but I feel that the majority of people taking transit to/from the airport may not be headed downtown. The light blue line is also a lower capacity line, likely having smaller vehicles, that might be better suited for the volume of passengers that I expect on the line to the airport. And smaller vehicles would fit better with what is currently being built.

The yellow line (the Bank Street Subway) will be a high-capacity line. As such, I am debating whether I should extend it across the Rideau River into Barrhaven – probably continuing along Chapman Mills to Marketplace Station. This would allow the green line (which would be lower capacity) to have a bi-directional loop around Barrhaven. Extension of the yellow line into Barrhaven would not mean that the red line to Barrhaven could be removed. Both lines would likely be needed to handle the future population of Barrhaven.

Those with a keen eye would have noticed that I have added dashed-line extensions across the Ottawa River, into Gatineau. This would extend the light blue, yellow, and fuchsia lines.

This mainline topology would be the basis of the future transit system. Areas between these lines would be serviced by local buses and a few regional buses.

[J.OT13]

I thin I'd end the fuchsia Line at Blair instead of having it go through Orleans. The red Line could split at Blair to go down the planned Cumberland Transitway as rail instead (I'd even lean towards elevated rail along Innes instead of the planned route).

For Orleans, I'd build a BRT-Lite along Jeanne D'Arc/Innes/Trim.

Kanata, BRT-Lite along Hazeldean/TerryFox/March-Eagleson.

Fuchsia would need to be underground/elevated because Montreal road capacity is tapped-out, especially now that it is being narrowed to three lanes through Vanier.

I still prefer the idea of the Bank Line ending at the airport, maybe split at South Keys to take on the Riverside South Line if it's not too much trouble (simply a case of building a switch, no mods to the stations). I'd have Fuchsia and Bank as one urban metro Line to avoid forced transfers downtown.

I'd only have a BRT-Lite connect Barrhaven's red Line and Riverside South's (Line 2 or Bank). I don't think Barrhaven needs two high capacity options to get downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Reece Martin's latest video makes my point on how to make transit more useable and therefore make transit a real way to get around the city. Frequency. Ottawa's obsession with capacity planning since 2011 and repeated frequency cuts which never seem to get reversed is counter productive. It is the biggest driver to get people out of transit and into cars. Our decision makers should be watching this video as it makes the obvious point that frequency reduces travel times by reducing wait times for buses and trains. There is nothing worse than that idle time at a bus stop or station. Remember the post in the last week of the 40 minute wait for a bus at Blair Station. That does not sell transit, and this is the tip of the iceberg as people experience this level of awful service every day. This is not rocket science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzofaSm8pSw

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Reece Martin's latest video makes my point on how to make transit more useable and therefore make transit a real way to get around the city. Frequency. Ottawa's obsession with capacity planning since 2011 and repeated frequency cuts which never seem to get reversed is counter productive. It is the biggest driver to get people out of transit and into cars. Our decision makers should be watching this video as it makes the obvious point that frequency reduces travel times by reducing wait times for buses and trains. There is nothing worse than that idle time at a bus stop or station. Remember the post in the last week of the 40 minute wait for a bus at Blair Station. That does not sell transit, and this is the tip of the iceberg as people experience this level of awful service every day. This is not rocket science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzofaSm8pSw

Tackling frequency and reliability also makes the transfer problem much more manageable. It doesn't matter how good two transit segments in any mode are, if the wait to transfer between them is long, and especially if it is long and sucks for other reasons like crap shelters.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Tackling frequency and reliability also makes the transfer problem much more manageable. It doesn't matter how good two transit segments in any mode are, if the wait to transfer between them is long, and especially if it is long and sucks for other reasons like crap shelters.

Transfers are fine if the frequency of both services are good. Problem currently is the Cofed has great frequencies, but buses are 30 minutes + ... if they show up at all.

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Transfers are fine if the frequency of both services are good. Problem currently is the Cofed has great frequencies, but buses are 30 minutes + ... if they show up at all.

In my case, though, the two buses I can transfer to are 30 minute frequencies and run within five minutes of each other most of the time. Therefore, despite 2 choices, the schedule demands I wait 25 and 30 minutes if I've just missed a bus.

This inconvenience is compounded by the fact that I could also take a transitway bus but those are in a completely different area of Tunneys. It is a 4 minute walk for me (I'm slow due to arthritis) to my local stop and then almost 5 minutes back to the transitway bus stops.

So if I get there, find out the bus I wanted was phantom, and walk back to the transitway stop, I've burned 9 minutes from the time I got off the train.

It is a 20 minute walk home. It is also an 8 minute walk from Westboro Station to home.

When I add 9 + 8, it is better to just walk out of the station and start walking home, than even try to connect to a bus. Plus, if my local bus is actually running, I stand a chance of picking it up on Scott without having to walk to the bus stop at Tunneys.

Now, I don't take transit often (I've only taken it 2x since Covid, as opposed to 2x per month) so maybe there are better strategies or accurate apps that will tell me the real wait time as opposed to the schedule or ghost time. But that is complicated at Tunneys because, as I understand it, the GPS doesn't start transmitting until the bus leaves if it is originating from there.

So part of the reason I don't take transit often is because I need to be sure I'll have the strength to stand around and wait for the connecting bus, or to walk home. On the outbound portion of the trip, I can usually time it to grab the local bus and it is usually on time since it originates at Westboro Station. But if I miss that bus, it is faster to walk to Tunneys than wait for another bus.

The appalling bit about my situation is that I chose to live in the urban core partly so I could use transit regularly, and I have a bus at my door, but transit is still inconvenient to the point of being my third choice for getting around (walk, car, transit is my go-to order for errands). I have full sympathy for those who don't live in the urban core. For me, the extra 10 minutes transit theoretically takes is made up by the benefit of not having to drive downtown and find parking. For those further away, it is a no brainer if you already own a car, especially if more than one person is taking the trip.

I was part of the Abacus poll for transit use this week and they weren't really interested in finding out details of why I'd choose to take transit, just what the purpose of my trip was. While purpose of trip is important, time it takes to complete a journey and cost of taking a car vs transit are also part of the equation. That was not the focus of this poll.