LRT Stage 3

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The overall story is about the future of Stage 3 but those comments relate to past decisions and refer to long infrequent trains that take kids to school. Line 2 has been mostly for students, and you can't claim that Line 1 is infrequent. So, my comments are not unreasonable.

On top of what others have already said, I think you're taking this comment way too literally.

It referred to Ferraris that take kids to school. i.e. buying a Ferrari to do the job of a minivan.

Ridership on Line 2 could be a whole lot better if it actually served the neighbouring population better and at frequency that provided reliable transfers to local buses. I don't know why you consider this cynical. It is the truth of the situation.

Virtually every aspect of the Line 2 expansion is a net gain for the transit network, except for its headway which is unchanged.
If you want to make the argument that Line 1 and 3 have diminished the transit network, then sure you can make that argument-- just like the article does. You could even say the same for Line 4. But dragging Line 2 into this overgeneralization of "rail has so far made transit worse" is entirely a you problem.

Yes, the upgrades to Line 2 could have been better, but that does not somehow mean that it has "made transit worse".

If you're still hung up on train-to-bus transfers, I'm going to suggest (like I have in the past) that you consider that maybe the bus network isn't being scheduled to fit our rail infrastructure.

I think your comment is cynical because you just had to drag Line 2 into this topic. You took a somewhat vague and confusing quote about the Confederation Line and forced it to fit your problems with the Line 2, which completely missed the point of the original quote.

Overall, rail has so far made transit worse as the article suggests. The average Ottawa resident agrees. It is a sad statement, but it is also true.

Yet all I hear is anticipation for the reopening of Line 2.

[Hybrid247]

Anyone with an ounce of understanding of the problems plaguing OC Transpo knows that the Transitway conversion to rail isn't the issue. The problem lies with the fleet of sub-standard and defective trains and the continuous budget cuts which have eroded the quality of bus service across the city.

Everyone generally agrees that when the O-Train is functioning as designed, it works great, and many Ottawa residents have said as much. Their problem is with the reliability of service due to the faulty trains, and the infrequent and unreliable bus service. To say that the transition to a rail-based trunk line in itself is the problem is just ignorant and does nothing to help the issue. It's simply rage bait material.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why exactly would Schabas be talking about Stadler Flirts in an article where he's being asked for commentary on Stage 3 of the Confederation Line?

You're so fixated on whinging incessantly that it's impacted your reading comprehension.

The mere fact that he prefaced the statement with "Ottawa had a great bus system" makes it obvious he is criticizing the overall conversion of the Transitway system to rail, not just the upgrades to Line 2.

That aside, I don't know much about Schabas and his history on this subject, but he is clearly out of touch with the history of the Transitway and current O-Train operations, or purposely making misleading statements to fit his own agenda.

[J.OT13]

Schabas, who under Canadian infrastructure consultancy CPCS has worked for Toronto's Metrolinx, said City of Ottawa staff must now grapple with their "multi-million dollar mistake" of buying "a fleet of Ferraris to take the kids to school" that they can never return to the dealer.

If he is referring to Line 2, this is kind of insulting. University students are some of the life blood of a healthy transit ridership. Carleton students probably represented the majority of the 20k using Line 2 everyday, which is far more than many more expansive systems in the U.S.

The train fleet looks huge because they are physically huge. These are main line European trains built for long distance comfort, not transit vehicles. Cheaper to buy these huge trains (with lower capacity than most LRVs or light-metros) on a basic rail line over converting to electric urban rail.

Personally, I'm highly disappointed with Stage 2 of Line 2. For nearly a $Billion, it does very little to improve the service for existing riders. Virtually no upgrades to existing stations. We do get a few new infill stations that will prove useful. Doubling capacity through double tracking/frequency would have been far better for the long term future of the system than doubling the length of trains and platforms.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

On top of what others have already said, I think you're taking this comment way too literally.

It referred to Ferraris that take kids to school. i.e. buying a Ferrari to do the job of a minivan.


Virtually every aspect of the Line 2 expansion is a net gain for the transit network, except for its headway which is unchanged.
If you want to make the argument that Line 1 and 3 have diminished the transit network, then sure you can make that argument-- just like the article does. You could even say the same for Line 4. But dragging Line 2 into this overgeneralization of "rail has so far made transit worse" is entirely a you problem.

Yes, the upgrades to Line 2 could have been better, but that does not somehow mean that it has "made transit worse".

If you're still hung up on train-to-bus transfers, I'm going to suggest (like I have in the past) that you consider that maybe the bus network isn't being scheduled to fit our rail infrastructure.

I think your comment is cynical because you just had to drag Line 2 into this topic. You took a somewhat vague and confusing quote about the Confederation Line and forced it to fit your problems with the Line 2, which completely missed the point of the original quote.


Yet all I hear is anticipation for the reopening of Line 2.

The results of everything done to date impact the future of Stage 3. The fact that Line 2 has been closed for 3 1/2 years has indeed made transit worse, much worse for those affected. I guess anticipation about reopening Line 2 is all about how bad things have been, including often erratic schedules during the closure, something I have personally experienced. Furthermore, the lack of real improvements in service for existing customers and the lack of future proofing Line 2 after spending several hundred million is something the average transit user and taxpayer should not be happy about.

I am not sure why you comment about bus-train transfers as a bus problem which points to my past impression (based on OC staff comments made at public meetings) that rail and buses at OC operate in separate silos instead of building towards a unified transit network, which the public expects to happen. At one public meeting, OC's rail people pushed the transfer problem onto bus operations, and the bus people in turn told me that they didn't have the budget to properly facilitate transfers. What exactly was the extra cost of replacing the Walkley overpass instead of rehabilitating it? We have been told that this would allowed 10 minute frequency, which would have facilitated much easier scheduling with the bus network.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If he is referring to Line 2, this is kind of insulting.

He almost certainly isn't.

Personally, I'm highly disappointed with Stage 2 of Line 2. For nearly a $Billion, it does very little to improve the service for existing riders. Virtually no upgrades to existing stations. We do get a few new infill stations that will prove useful. Doubling capacity through double tracking/frequency would have been far better for the long term future of the system than doubling the length of trains and platforms.

"Nearly a billion dollars" is maybe a stretch.

"Virtually no upgrades to existing stations" is also quite an exaggeration. The existing stations have received some meaningful upgrades in terms of shelter, signage, fire exits, and a redundant elevator at Dow's Lake. What more was expected? (aside from double tracking)

I want to emphasize again that "could have been much better" is still not the same as "made things worse".

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The results of everything done to date impact the future of Stage 3. The fact that Line 2 has been closed for 3 1/2 years has indeed made transit worse, much worse for those affected. I guess anticipation about reopening Line 2 is all about how bad things have been, including often erratic schedules during the closure, something I have personally experienced.

So in other words, Ottawa's transit network would be better if it had this rail line?

Seriously, to me you come across as trying to find any reason to be unhappy about Line 2.

"Rail has made transit worse"
"Closing Line 2 made transit worse"
"People are only anticipating Line 2 because transit is worse without it"

It's contradictory, and it's cynical.

Furthermore, the lack of real improvements in service for existing customers and the lack of future proofing Line 2 after spending several hundred million is something the average transit user and taxpayer should not be happy about.

"Lack of real improvements" is a nonsense statement. The dozens of students who won't be left behind at Mooney's Bay and Dow's Lake in the morning rush is what I'd call a "real improvement", for starters. Plus, for better or for worse, I think the average taxpayer is happy that hundreds of millions (if not billions) more weren't spent.

We all get it, that more could have been done, but there are so many ways you can be critical and constructive without constantly being so insufferably negative.

I am not sure why you comment about bus-train transfers as a bus problem which points to my past impression (based on OC staff comments made at public meetings) that rail and buses at OC operate in separate silos instead of building towards a unified transit network, which the public expects to happen. At one public meeting, OC's rail people pushed the transfer problem onto bus operations, and the bus people in turn told me that they didn't have the budget to properly facilitate transfers. What exactly was the extra cost of replacing the Walkley overpass instead of rehabilitating it? We have been told that this would allowed 10 minute frequency, which would have facilitated much easier scheduling with the bus network.

Facilitating transfers with a 10 minute headway only marginally improves rail service and does nothing to improve bus service. You clearly understand that there are budgetary limitations on the bus system, but I can't understand why your view on this matter is so narrowly focused on Line 2.

12 minute headways are not awful, and it can still be improved upon in the future-- but you are just dropping any potential improvement to the bus network on the floor so that you can keep complaining about Line 2.

So to conclude, Line 2 has and will materially improve Ottawa's transit network, and you shouldn't let your inexplicably cynical views distract you from the fact that we still can and should improve our transit network outside of rail too.