Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Bank St. subway is a non-starter. There's no business case for it. For comparison, the same money can be used to twin track the entire Trillium Line and extend it and build a proper airport spur. So let's drop that fantasy.

The Barrhaven extension makes sense. There's just no justification to extend into Kanata and not reach at least Fallowfield in Stage 3. Especially given how far they are going into Orleans in Stage 2.

This is off-topic for this thread (so perhaps a reply would be better in a Trillium Line thread), but what exactly constitutes a "proper airport spur"?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This is off-topic for this thread (so perhaps a reply would be better in a Trillium Line thread), but what exactly constitutes a "proper airport spur"?

A dual track approach that actually supports high frequency service with the Trillium Line. So two services, one that terminates at the airport and one that terminates at Limebank.

Or even better a spur that supports high frequency service from both directions into and out of the airport.

[MaxHeadroom]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A dual track approach that actually supports high frequency service with the Trillium Line. So two services, one that terminates at the airport and one that terminates at Limebank.

The end of the Canada Line at Vancouver International Airport is only a single track station. It works just fine, and YVR handles six times the passengers that YOW does. Having dual track for the airport doesn't make sense given the small passenger load.

What would be really cool, is to have the Trillium line tunnel under the airport, with a regular station at the airport between Ottawa and Barrhaven.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A dual track approach that actually supports high frequency service with the Trillium Line. So two services, one that terminates at the airport and one that terminates at Limebank.

Or even better a spur that supports high frequency service from both directions into and out of the airport.

Frequency won't be an issue on the airport spur. As it currently is, it supports frequencies somewhere between 5-8 minutes which is more than enough for the airport.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This is off-topic for this thread (so perhaps a reply would be better in a Trillium Line thread), but what exactly constitutes a "proper airport spur"?

One that doesn't require taking three trains to get to the city centre.

[YOWflier]

I've been a bit out of touch. What are the reasons why the airport train can't at least interline to Bayview?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I've been a bit out of touch. What are the reasons why the airport train can't at least interline to Bayview?

Insufficient capacity on the mainline. The route from South Keys to Bayview can only have a train once every 10 minutes at most (due to the single track design with limited passing sidings); so if you interlined the two routes, each individual service couldn't come any more frequently than every 20 minutes. This would be fine for the airport but it would extremely insufficient for Riverside South.

They are keeping the option open of doing interlining in late night periods when service to Riverside South would probably only be every 20 minutes or so anyway.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

One that doesn't require taking three trains to get to the city centre.

And with a Bank St. subway, the trains could be rerouted to give both Riverside South and the Airport a direct train downtown.

The vast majority of the cost of double tracking the Trillium Line is north of Greenboro, so if Truenorth00's predection that a Bank St. subway cost the same as it would "to twin track the entire Trillium Line and extend it and build a proper airport spur," then for for a minuscule amount more, we could get a direct line downtown instead.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And with a Bank St. subway, the trains could be rerouted to give both Riverside South and the Airport a direct train downtown.

The vast majority of the cost of double tracking the Trillium Line is north of Greenboro, so if Truenorth00's predection that a Bank St. subway cost the same as it would "to twin track the entire Trillium Line and extend it and build a proper airport spur," then for for a minuscule amount more, we could get a direct line downtown instead.

Underground subways are somewhere in the 300M/km range, so I would estimate somewhere in the 3 billion range to get to hunt club plus several hundred million more for a mostly surface branch to the airport. Riverside South would probably be a billon beyond that.

To me the potential ridership would be nowhere near the level to justify such an expense.

I have long been of the view that an airport branch makes little sense until a longer term decision is made about the Trillium line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Insufficient capacity on the mainline. The route from South Keys to Bayview can only have a train once every 10 minutes at most (due to the single track design with limited passing sidings); so if you interlined the two routes, each individual service couldn't come any more frequently than every 20 minutes. This would be fine for the airport but it would extremely insufficient for Riverside South.

They are keeping the option open of doing interlining in late night periods when service to Riverside South would probably only be every 20 minutes or so anyway.

The thing I don't get about this argument is currently only route 99 runs between Greenboro and Riverside South and currently its maximum frequency is every 15 minutes and that is only duding rush hour in one direction. The rest of the day, it is every 30 minutes. Given that the the new trains will have about 6 times the capacity of an articulated bus, how is 20 minute service inadequate? I'm sure the new bus routes that feed the line won't be any more frequent than that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I've been a bit out of touch. What are the reasons why the airport train can't at least interline to Bayview?

The rough in for interlining was removed from the plans for bayview station (I think around 2011 or so) and the plan to convert the the diesel O-Train to LRT was cancelled in the 2013 TMP.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Underground subways are somewhere in the 300M/km range, so I would estimate somewhere in the 3 billion range to get to hunt club plus several hundred million more for a mostly surface branch to the airport. Riverside South would probably be a billon beyond that.

To me the potential ridership would be nowhere near the level to justify such an expense.

I have long been of the view that an airport branch makes little sense until a longer term decision is made about the Trillium line.

Did it cost 300M/km to build the entire Confederation line from Tunnies Pasture to Blair? No. Why? Because we only built a 2.5 km Tunnel and ran it on the surface everywhere else. The absolute furthest you would need a tunnel is Billings Bridge (possibly not even that far). Beyond that you can use the southern Transitway and the Stage 2 LRT to save money (just like we used the eastern and western Transitways for the Confederation Line).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The rough in for interlining was removed from the plans for bayview station (I think around 2011 or so) and the plan to convert the the diesel O-Train to LRT was cancelled in the 2013 TMP.

I think you misread the question (to much Canada Day festivities?). ac888yow was asking why it can't run beyond South Keys to Bayview.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think you misread the question (to much Canada Day festivities?). ac888yow was asking why it can't run beyond South Keys to Bayview.

You're right (about me misreading the question, not about festivities being the cause). I read it as "interline at bayview."

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Did it cost 300M/km to build the entire Confederation line from Tunnies Pasture to Blair? No. Why? Because we only built a 2.5 km Tunnel and ran it on the surface everywhere else. The absolute furthest you would need a tunnel is Billings Bridge (possibly not even that far). Beyond that you can use the southern Transitway and the Stage 2 LRT to save money (just like we used the eastern and western Transitways for the Confederation Line).

Ok, 1.5ish billion for the tunnel, a billion or so to convert the transitway, several hundred million for the airport branch, plus the cost of the Riverside South extension. I still don't think the number of users would justify the cost.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ok, 1.5ish billion for the tunnel, a billion or so to convert the transitway, several hundred million for the airport branch, plus the cost of the Riverside South extension. I still don't think the number of users would justify the cost.

You wouldn't need to spend all the extra money for the airport branch or the riverside south extension. They both (would) already exist.

Also, the airport spur will run just fine with a single track for a long time, even with a future subway. (Not every run would need to continue to the airport, and the single track, as I mentioned, can support high frequencies).

[YOWflier]

Thanks all. Not a fan. Airport should've been an inline stop in my mind. Probably rehashing old arguments though...

[J.OT13]

I have no issue with the airport spur being single track. Fifteen or twenty minute service would likely suffice for decades to come. My issue is that passengers will have to take three trains to downtown. At the very minimum, it should go straight to Bayview. I strongly believe though that the City should have a plan to somehow extend it to downtown eventually.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Thanks all. Not a fan. Airport should've been an inline stop in my mind. Probably rehashing old arguments though...

The problem is, because of the location of the terminal, the only options to have it as an inline stop are to tunnel under the terminal and runways (very expensive) or to have a very significant detour. As a result, splitting the line ended up being the best option. As others have said, it works well in Vancouver, though there the trains go all the way downtown.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

One that doesn't require taking three trains to get to the city centre.

Thank you. This is what i was alluding to. High frequency without the ridiculous musical chairs we'll have after Stage 2.

Originally Posted by roger1818

And with a Bank St. subway, the trains could be rerouted to give both Riverside South and the Airport a direct train downtown.

Again though, to what end and why is that the best use of funds? This requires spending billions so that Riverside South residents and airport users can save a transfer. And even that's debatable since getting downtown on a Bank St. subway is only helpful if they are bound for or originating from a destination near Bank St.

The DOTT approached $300 million/km a decade ago:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...S-PGM-0214.htm

It'll only be worse a decade from now when we're talking about realistically getting shovels in the ground for a Bank street subway. We're talking at least $300M/KM for at least 4 km. And more likely closer to 5 km with the portal. That's a $1.5 billion. For context, nearly doubling the length of the Trillium Line in Stage 2 is supposed to cost $400M:

http://www.globalconstructionreview....ra7il-sys7tem/

So just imagine what can be done with $1.5 billion. That's enough to turn the Trillium Line into a service similar to the Confederation Line (fully tracked, and electrified), and to pay for that Confederation Line extension to Barrhaven. What councillor in their right mind is going to vote for a Bank Street subway over that?

Originally Posted by acottawa

The vast majority of the cost of double tracking the Trillium Line is north of Greenboro, so if Truenorth00's predection that a Bank St. subway cost the same as it would "to twin track the entire Trillium Line and extend it and build a proper airport spur," then for for a minuscule amount more, we could get a direct line downtown instead.

There's just no business case for it. It's why you don't see any actual planner advocate for it. And never will. Bank St. does not need a subway itself. And a north-south route already exists, and can scale capacity for a few hundred million. And if a ROME is at $1.2-1.5 billion already, just imagine what this will cost a decade form now and what the opportunity costs would be to build a Bank St. subway.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I have no issue with the airport spur being single track. Fifteen or twenty minute service would likely suffice for decades to come. My issue is that passengers will have to take three trains to downtown. At the very minimum, it should go straight to Bayview. I strongly believe though that the City should have a plan to somehow extend it to downtown eventually.

There's a whole bunch of issues with the current plan. And 15-20 min service to the airport when you can cab it there in 20-30 mins depending on traffic and start point downtown is really pointless. The airport needs to be at sub-10 min service to be even close to useful. And I'd argue it could be sub-8 mins with 4 min frequencies on mainline (two branches, one to the airport, the other to Limebank).