Trillium Line Upgrades & Extension (Stage 2) [Greenboro to Airport/Limebank] | U/C

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

During peak hours the line was effectively at capacity. Passengers being left behind at Mooney's Bay or Carling was fairly common.

What I remember at Mooney's was more poor connection than poor capacity. The 88 would always seem to be dropping people off as the train was at the station, then there was a frantic rush of people trying to catch the train, which resulted in people being left behind because the train wouldn't wait.

There were definitely full trains, but it always seemed to be the stops on either side of Carleton, the rest of the line was usually fine.

I definitely agree with you though that I'd rather spend the money fixing the bus system then shaving a couple minutes off the train. If you consider Line 2 "commuter rail/regional rail" rather than urban rail, it has fantastic frequency. And considering now half the line is out in the bush, commuter rail seems an apt description

[kmcamp]

Seemed to be testing an alternative pattern yet again today. The line 4 would arrive as the southbound line 2 train approached. The lines 4 train then left maybe a minute later, then the southbound line 2 train arrived, dwelled a few seconds then left about a minute after the line 4 train left

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Seemed to be testing an alternative pattern yet again today. The line 4 would arrive as the southbound line 2 train approached. The lines 4 train then left maybe a minute later, then the southbound line 2 train arrived, dwelled a few seconds then left about a minute after the line 4 train left

That doesn't sound very useful, having Line 4 depart just before Line 2 arrived, effectively creating a 11 minute wait time before the next Line 4 departed. Presumably Line 4 was using the northbound platform.

Both northbound and southbound Line 2 trains have to pass each other at South Keys or nothing works. Most often, I observed them passing just north of the station where the pocket track is located.

Passing arrangements need to be:

1. south of Gladstone, Brookfield, Leitrim with the 7th train at Limebank or
2. Carleton, South Keys, somewhere around Bowesville with the 7th train at Bayview.

At passing points, there will be either two trains or none, otherwise the plan won't work.

[lrt's friend]

I've been away for a few days and came home via Riverside South. One thing that has not been taken into consideration is the design of the High Road/Albion Road intersection. High Road will be a principle access route from Greely to the Bowesville Park n Ride. The current intersection has a very sharp angle, something that has almost everywhere been eliminated for safety reasons (poor sight lines), yet nothing has been done to improve this intersection. To add to this, there is a dip in Albion Road just south of the intersection, creating further sight line problems. I don't understand how the city would allow this intersection layout to stand, with substantially more traffic expected with the Line 2 opening, not even traffic signals. This is an accident problem waiting to happen. Beyond scope? That is a foolish excuse in this case.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I've been away for a few days and came home via Riverside South. One thing that has not been taken into consideration is the design of the High Road/Albion Road intersection. High Road will be a principle access route from Greely to the Bowesville Park n Ride. The current intersection has a very sharp angle, something that has almost everywhere been eliminated for safety reasons (poor sight lines), yet nothing has been done to improve this intersection. To add to this, there is a dip in Albion Road just south of the intersection, creating further sight line problems. I don't understand how the city would allow this intersection layout to stand, with substantially more traffic expected with the Line 2 opening, not even traffic signals. This is an accident problem waiting to happen. Beyond scope? That is a foolish excuse in this case.

From the looks of this - https://ottawa.ca/en/parking-roads-a...tal-assessment - the city is planning to extend Earl Armstrong through Albion and beyond to Hawthorne - sometime after 2031...

I assume that would mean closing the intersection with High Road. If the city was thinking ahead they'd just build the intersection now - and hook it up to High Road until they get around to the rest of the project.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

That doesn't sound very useful, having Line 4 depart just before Line 2 arrived, effectively creating a 11 minute wait time before the next Line 4 departed. Presumably Line 4 was using the northbound platform

No both trains used the southbound platform. Basically the southbound line 2 train sat just outside the station beside the pocket track while the line 4 train entered and left. The northbound line 2 had left a moment before. I certainly hope this isn't the plan they go with

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

No both trains used the southbound platform. Basically the southbound line 2 train sat just outside the station beside the pocket track while the line 4 train entered and left. The northbound line 2 had left a moment before. I certainly hope this isn't the plan they go with

where was the northbound train?

What you are describing makes no sense for efficient operations.

Just like in 2016 when they added trains and passing tracks, which failed to deliver on promises, I don't think they know how to make this setup work properly. I said even before they started construction, more trains, more single track sections, means more complicated operations, and more opportunities for failure to maintain schedule. I hope I am wrong. Otherwise, how and when can they open the line?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think there's a continued irony in calling a 12 minute headway "pathetic" when virtually every bus route in the city fails to meet even that level of service.

Between spending tens of millions of dollars in scope creep to cut the headways on one train line by 2 or 4 minutes, and spending tens of millions of dollars a year in cutting 5 or more minutes off of the headways of dozens of bus routes— I know what I'd pick.

I'd still call spending $600 millon+ upgrading a single track line and NOT improving the 12 minute frequncy pathetic. It was also pathetic promissing an 8 minute frequency last time, but only achieving 12 minutes. This was an oppurtunity to correct their mistake from that last "upgrade", but instead focused on extending the line as far as possible. It would have been easy to eliminate Bowesville (when Limebank was added) to double Walkley.

Ridership got a generous bump from the opening of the Confederation Line, but it wasn't even close to "doubling".
Q4 2017 ridership was just under 17k riders per day.

My mistake. I thought it was only 10k-12k before Line 1 opened.

[Richard Eade]

I don’t think that much of what you are seeing with the operation of Lines 2 & 4 is in any way the preferred future operating sequence. This is a test period, so all possible patterns must be tested.

If, for some catastrophic reason, the two lines became wildly out of synchronization, staff need to know what parameters can still be met; where a train could wait; how little (or how much) time/distance would be between vehicles. The operators and controllers all need to be familiar with all possible situations; not just the basic, probable ones. Imagine if something does go wrong after the lines open. That is not the time for operators and controllers to be charting new territory. They need to have ‘Been there – Done That’.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd still call spending $600 millon+ upgrading a single track line and NOT improving the 12 minute frequncy pathetic. It was also pathetic promissing an 8 minute frequency last time, but only achieving 12 minutes. This was an oppurtunity to correct their mistake from that last "upgrade", but instead focused on extending the line as far as possible. It would have been easy to eliminate Bowesville (when Limebank was added) to double Walkley.

To add to this, 12 minutes is not the worse thing in the World. Better or simmilar to most U.S. urban rail systems (though I'm tired of "at least we're better tha the U.S. mantra).

The constant and steady reliabilty is what makes Line 2 good (if they keep it consistent as it was before the shut down and they can we don't get another years long shut down). Urban buses, and we've seen that with R2 in particular, don't have anywhere near this level of reliability. We can say that bus frequencies are 15, 10, 5 minutes on paper, but that's never the case for the busiest urban routes.

I'm just disapointed that $600+ million coucln't even shave a couple minutes off the frequency. I think that's a fair criticism of the project. Finding $20-$30 million on a $600+ million project to double Walkley would not have been that difficult.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

To add to this, 12 minutes is not the worse thing in the World. Better or simmilar to most U.S. urban rail systems (though I'm tired of "at least we're better tha the U.S. mantra).

The constant and steady reliabilty is what makes Line 2 good (if they keep it consistent as it was before the shut down and they can we don't get another years long shut down). Urban buses, and we've seen that with R2 in particular, don't have anywhere near this level of reliability. We can say that bus frequencies are 15, 10, 5 minutes on paper, but that's never the case for the busiest urban routes.

I'm just disapointed that $600+ million coucln't even shave a couple minutes off the frequency. I think that's a fair criticism of the project. Finding $20-$30 million on a $600+ million project to double Walkley would not have been that difficult.

Why complain now? That was what city council agreed to back in 2019 when Phase 2 was approved. The 'experts' told city council that a double length trains would be sufficient for decades without improving frequency. For the majority on city council, that was good enough.

For non-student users, the possibility of 28 minute transfers to buses is just not good enough because of that 12 minute rail schedule cannot be reliably meshed with connecting bus service. That might be good enough in the USA, where they don't really bother to try to feed trains with buses, but that is not how transit has worked in Ottawa for decades especially as a replacement for the one seat express system adopted in the 1970s.

This is the way towards recovering ridership losses? Not likely.

[lrt's friend]

I am listening to the tribute to Diane Deans and her blunt question of whether the Line 2 proposal met the 70% technical requirement. Is that a Yes? It should be simple to answer Yes. Or maybe it is a No? Hmmm. Is that failure to reach 70% coming back to haunt us?

We have lost a courageous independent thinker on City Council.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

where was the northbound train?

What you are describing makes no sense for efficient operations.

Just like in 2016 when they added trains and passing tracks, which failed to deliver on promises, I don't think they know how to make this setup work properly. I said even before they started construction, more trains, more single track sections, means more complicated operations, and more opportunities for failure to maintain schedule. I hope I am wrong. Otherwise, how and when can they open the line?

The northbound train was at Greenboro, basically the order was
1- Northbound train arrives and waits for southbound train
2- both the Southbound train and the airport train approach the station
3- the southbound train parks beside the pocket track, northbound train leaves now that the way is clear, airport train arrives at platform. Basically the airport train and southbound train are about 300m apart at this point
4- airport train leaves station to the south
5- southbound train arrives at platform
6- southbound train leaves less than 30 seconds later


If the airport train arrived and left on the other side, this might actually work well. You'd have the southbound train letting people off, they'd walk across the platform and onto the airport train Going to the airport rather than from the airport is the more time sensitive travel. But of course they'd have to redo the wayfinding in the station

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am listening to the tribute to Diane Deans and her blunt question of whether the Line 2 proposal met the 70% technical requirement. Is that a Yes? It should be simple to answer Yes. Or maybe it is a No? Hmmm. Is that failure to reach 70% coming back to haunt us?

We have lost a courageous independent thinker on City Council.

I distinctly remember when Council approved of the process, City staff said it would be impossible for a bid to go through without that 70%. When the time came to vote, City staff were proud to say that the winning bids were the cheapest, but were dodgy about the 70% question, even when Leiper trailered the question to be about the process instead of that particular bid.

Once everything was approved and signed, the City released all sorts of info you'd think would be off limits.

The entire process was cagey at, and Diane Deans was right to be highly distrustful of the Watson Club and City Staff.

That said, I'm pretty confident this relatively simple line will run well. Could have been better, but this will still be a huge upgrade from R2.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd still call spending $600 millon+ upgrading a single track line and NOT improving the 12 minute frequncy pathetic. It was also pathetic promissing an 8 minute frequency last time, but only achieving 12 minutes. This was an oppurtunity to correct their mistake from that last "upgrade", but instead focused on extending the line as far as possible. It would have been easy to eliminate Bowesville (when Limebank was added) to double Walkley.

If this project had ever promised an increase to service levels then I would agree.

We're spending $800M to extend the line, add infill stations, double the capacity, add a bunch of pedestrian infrastructure, build a rail line grade separation.
We're spending exactly $0 to decrease headways, so how much we're spending overall is a moot point.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

For non-student users, the possibility of 28 minute transfers to buses is just not good enough because of that 12 minute rail schedule cannot be reliably meshed with connecting bus service. That might be good enough in the USA, where they don't really bother to try to feed trains with buses, but that is not how transit has worked in Ottawa for decades especially as a replacement for the one seat express system adopted in the 1970s.

I want to emphasize yet again for the millionth time: the bus service is the bigger problem.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I want to emphasize yet again for the millionth time: the bus service is the bigger problem.

If seems to me that our bus network across the board is designed to run on 15 minute or 30 minute cycles. There are very few exceptions.

Why would we not design our trunk line (Line 2) to be in sync with this?

What is the alternative? To change bus schedules to run on 12 minute and 24 minute frequencies, so that trains match up better. This would increase the cost of bus service by 20%. And this needs to be city wide, so that bus to bus transfers will also work. Is that going to happen? NO!

So, we design a network that is guaranteed to offer unreliable transfers. Is this going to make transit attractive? Also, No.

We wonder why we lost 30% of ridership, with little prospect of gaining new rider markets. Reliable transfers is the solution, but we offer few prospects that this will happen. There is risk here that we might actually lose ridership especially in certain locations where rail-bus transfers are especially problematic, mostly growth areas.

We can make all kinds of statements that bus service is the problem as we prepare to cut service. As a potential rider, that offers nothing.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

If this project had ever promised an increase to service levels then I would agree.

We're spending $800M to extend the line, add infill stations, double the capacity, add a bunch of pedestrian infrastructure, build a rail line grade separation.
We're spending exactly $0 to decrease headways, so how much we're spending overall is a moot point.

Thanks for the correction. $800 million. Doubling Walkley would have been a $20-$30 million addition to the project, on $800 million. Savings like removing Bowesville and NOT rehabilitating the Walkley overpass could have mostly covered that. Something very small the City could have done to improve service for existing riders.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If seems to me that our bus network across the board is designed to run on 15 minute or 30 minute cycles. There are very few exceptions.

Why would we not design our trunk line (Line 2) to be in sync with this?

I mean what you're suggesting is effectively that increasing headways on Line 2 to 15 minutes would actually be better for connecting service than cutting them to 10 or 8 minutes.
Be careful what you wish for?

What is the alternative? To change bus schedules to run on 12 minute and 24 minute frequencies, so that trains match up better. This would increase the cost of bus service by 20%. And this needs to be city wide, so that bus to bus transfers will also work. Is that going to happen? NO!
[...]
We can make all kinds of statements that bus service is the problem as we prepare to cut service. As a potential rider, that offers nothing.

I don't know if it's sunk in for you yet that the service levels on Line 2 aren't going to be changing any time soon either.
Yes, that's obviously the alternative. If even you can't be bother to advocate for it, why would anyone else?

As a potential rider, you're offering me even less than what OC Transpo can and that's really saying something here.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for the correction. $800 million. Doubling Walkley would have been a $20-$30 million addition to the project, on $800 million. Savings like removing Bowesville and NOT rehabilitating the Walkley overpass could have mostly covered that. Something very small the City could have done to improve service for existing riders.

$20-30M is a ballpark estimate from almost a decade ago. It would undoubtably would have cost more than that in the final project, and that's not any better for scope creep than any of the other late additions to the project.

Bowesville might be less necessary now that the entire secondary plan for Riverside South has been urbanized, but axing it at the time would have been silly.
Yeah, things are so much easier when you ignore all of the annoying constraints that projects like these had to work under in hindsight-- but that's not helpful for any discussion.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

$20-30M is a ballpark estimate from almost a decade ago. It would undoubtably would have cost more than that in the final project, and that's not any better for scope creep than any of the other late additions to the project.

Bowesville might be less necessary now that the entire secondary plan for Riverside South has been urbanized, but axing it at the time would have been silly.

Yeah, things are so much easier when you ignore all of the annoying constraints that projects like these had to work under in hindsight-- but that's not helpful for any discussion.

Had doubling Walkley been part of the initial RFP, the cost would probably have been fairly close to that estimate. Maybe a bit more, $50 million. Today with the insane inflationary pressures on transit projects, it would probably be closer to $100 million.

Bowesville is pretty far from Limebank, jut barely within the current urban boundary. It could take 30+ years before anything is built within walking distance. That's well within good candidacy for a future infill (don't get me started on Jasmine, which would have been far more useful, but admittedly more expensive).

[OTownandDown]

My friend has been recently raising a stink with OC Transpo and his councilor about new bus routes.

He comes from the north-east side of Bank and Walkley, on a neighbourhood collector bus, which ends at Billings Bridge per the updated route maps.

If the bus continued 800m further on Heron, he could loop into Line 2 and his commute would be 1/2 hour (granted, there's no easy bus turnaround here)

The Councillor and OC Transpo has recommended he stay on his bus to billings, sit for the short break at the end of the route, continue on the same route down the transitway to Hurdman, and catch Line 1, and from line one circle downtown, past Bayview, and onwards to Tunneys. A total of a 1 hour commute. Driving his car is 15 minutes. Hmmm...