OC Transpo

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by TransitZilla

The ridership numbers for Line 2 since it re-opened have been quite good. If it is such a boondoggle, how come the Bowesville Park & Ride consistently fills up to the point that the city is set to spend $20M to expand it?

I agree that it could be a bit faster but the negativity is tiring.

I very much understand the frustration with the speed and frequency along with the three train airport-downtown trip, both related to the lack of double tracking, but I agree it's been a success story overall.

We can only hope that this massive success leads to upgrades sooner, if only for safety concerns from overcrowded platforms (looking at you Dow's Lake).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yeah. The O-Train in Ottawa was not designed to move people quickly (or conveniently). Remember, Mayor Chiarelli went to great pains to stress that the ‘R’ in LRT stands for ‘RAIL’, NOT ‘RAPID – as it did in BRT. Ottawa’s O-Train was planned for cost saving. The move to trains as trunk-line vehicles was supposed to move more people in each vehicle (with a single operator). It is the ultimate extension of the idea that moving more people with fewer resources make a transit system more efficient, and, thus, cheaper to run.

The biggest motivation was not cost savings. Not sure why this myth persists. Has everybody forgotten the bus conga lines through the core? The system was going to collapse if it kept trying to put more and more buses through the downtown core.

[eltodesukane]

And low-floor trains compromise interior seating because the wheels and bogies protrude into the passenger cabin.
This forces engineers to design awkward, raised platform seats
or longitudinal bench seating to clear the wheel wells,
often leaving less legroom and narrower, more congested aisles.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The biggest motivation was not cost savings. Not sure why this myth persists. Has everybody forgotten the bus conga lines through the core? The system was going to collapse if it kept trying to put more and more buses through the downtown core.

I think that there is a more profound reason behind the obvious. Yes, the most visible SYMPTOM of the problem was the lines of buses through Ottawa’s downtown core. And that was one of the problems that needed to be addressed.

Drilling down though, the basic issue was that one-seat, often express, buses between all parts of the city and downtown were very well used. So much so that it overwhelmed the transit infrastructure through the core – but, generally, only through the two kilometres of that central portion. If this had been cars on a highway, it would have been considered highly congested and due for additional lanes.

More lanes was also an option for transit through downtown. This could have been done by directing some of the peak-period buses onto other roadways. For example, from the end of the Transitway on LeBreton Flats, an overpass of Albert St. could have carried buses up Nanny Goat Hill to Laurier Ave. However, Laurier would have had the same limitation of having traffic signals every block that Slater and Albert had. Thus, although a relatively cheap option (likely about $50M-$100M), the capacity added from those additional lanes would be somewhat limited.

Alternatively, the Transitway plan was always to add new lanes by building a bus tunnel under Slater (likely $400M-$500M). These additional, underground, lanes could handle a greater volume of buses than the surface ones. By splitting the bus volume between the surface and the tunnel, more than twice the number of buses could have been handled. (And, given that downtown Ottawa has strict height restrictions for buildings, I would doubt that the number of workers commuting into the core would climb to double for decades.)

By adding more lanes for buses, the single-seat rides could have been preserved. However, as ridership grew, moving large numbers of people with buses becomes very expensive. The greatest portion of the operating cost for busing people is the cost of the labour – both for the bus operators and the support staff (bus maintenance workers, and administration). If ridership ever did double, it would probably mean operating costs would increase by more than double.

So, it was not that there was no other option that prompted the change of technology. There were choices that had lower capital cost and that would preserve superior service levels; but they would be much more expensive to operate. A change from buses to trains was much higher in capital cost – although that cost would be shared by all three levels of government – but could be configured to reduce operating costs. And this is what prompted Ottawa to convert most of its Transitway system to rail.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that there is a more profound reason behind the obvious. Yes, the most visible SYMPTOM of the problem was the lines of buses through Ottawa’s downtown core. And that was one of the problems that needed to be addressed.

Drilling down though, the basic issue was that one-seat, often express, buses between all parts of the city and downtown were very well used. So much so that it overwhelmed the transit infrastructure through the core – but, generally, only through the two kilometres of that central portion. If this had been cars on a highway, it would have been considered highly congested and due for additional lanes.

More lanes was also an option for transit through downtown. This could have been done by directing some of the peak-period buses onto other roadways. For example, from the end of the Transitway on LeBreton Flats, an overpass of Albert St. could have carried buses up Nanny Goat Hill to Laurier Ave. However, Laurier would have had the same limitation of having traffic signals every block that Slater and Albert had. Thus, although a relatively cheap option (likely about $50M-$100M), the capacity added from those additional lanes would be somewhat limited.

Alternatively, the Transitway plan was always to add new lanes by building a bus tunnel under Slater (likely $400M-$500M). These additional, underground, lanes could handle a greater volume of buses than the surface ones. By splitting the bus volume between the surface and the tunnel, more than twice the number of buses could have been handled. (And, given that downtown Ottawa has strict height restrictions for buildings, I would doubt that the number of workers commuting into the core would climb to double for decades.)

By adding more lanes for buses, the single-seat rides could have been preserved. However, as ridership grew, moving large numbers of people with buses becomes very expensive. The greatest portion of the operating cost for busing people is the cost of the labour – both for the bus operators and the support staff (bus maintenance workers, and administration). If ridership ever did double, it would probably mean operating costs would increase by more than double.

So, it was not that there was no other option that prompted the change of technology. There were choices that had lower capital cost and that would preserve superior service levels; but they would be much more expensive to operate. A change from buses to trains was much higher in capital cost – although that cost would be shared by all three levels of government – but could be configured to reduce operating costs. And this is what prompted Ottawa to convert most of its Transitway system to rail.

Two problems with this. One, can you imagine what downtown would look like if it had multiple versions of the Slater-Albert transit way cutting through it? Not a downtown that would be remotely appealing for any purpose other than receiving large volumes of commuters.

Two, the single-seat, peak period express bus model is horrendously expensive. Sure you could potentially try to recover some of that cost with higher fares, but there is a limit to what you can charge. And by devoting more and more resources to that commuter model, you are depleting the resources you can put towards a comprehensive all-day transit system that makes transit a viable transportation option.

There is a reason (or more accurately, multiple reasons) that no major cities have followed the path that you are suggesting.

[Jihn M]

Interesting discussion. Would it be technically possible at some point to extend the Line 2 high platform trains along the original proposed 2006 route (ie from Bayview and along Albert and Slater in opposite directions), making use of the kind of sidewalk located ramps for boarding/disembarking used on the Calgary C train downtown? At least, that would eliminate one of the transfers to the Airport and would provide a higher overall capacity to deliver passengers all the way downtown by rail. I appreciate that, even if technically feasible, there would be not much point pursuing the idea further in the absence of considering other steps to double track all or many sections of the current Line.

[lrt's friend]

Oddly enough, the cost of operating the trains has proven to be more expensive than the buses that they replaced. And this gets worse with Phase 2 and even worse with Phase 3, as the number of buses actually replaced decreases.

It has been clearly stated that the opening of Line 2 and 4 has increased costs to the city.

We can state that Line 2 is a success because we need to increase the capacity of the Bowesville Park n Ride, but are we assessing getting people to their destination by transit in the south end? This appears to be less successful because rail-bus transfers are not convenient. We can even say that Line 2 ridership has increased, but parallel and faster Transitway bus service was substantially cut and even worse, made very unreliable. So, Line 2 ridership may have increased, but only because we effectively forced ridership off the Transitway.

We can make statements of success, yet, how is it that overall transit ridership has actually decreased in the last year? This does not sound like success to me and far below 2019 ridership levels when rail opened.

I am sure that some people have benefited from rail, and they rave about it in this discussion group, but overall, much more people have not had a similar experience, especially when their journey is not entirely by rail. All taxpayers paid for this, and the majority should have seen a real benefit from rail. This has not been the case.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by phil235

Two problems with this. One, can you imagine what downtown would look like if it had multiple versions of the Slater-Albert transit way cutting through it? Not a downtown that would be remotely appealing for any purpose other than receiving large volumes of commuters.

Two, the single-seat, peak period express bus model is horrendously expensive. Sure you could potentially try to recover some of that cost with higher fares, but there is a limit to what you can charge. And by devoting more and more resources to that commuter model, you are depleting the resources you can put towards a comprehensive all-day transit system that makes transit a viable transportation option.

There is a reason (or more accurately, multiple reasons) that no major cities have followed the path that you are suggesting.

Yes, phil235, I can imagine a bus tunnel under Downtown Ottawa. It is not impossible for buses to run underground, nor to have below-grade bus stations. Ottawa had the St. Laurent Transitway station, as an example. If you don’t think of that as a long enough tunnel – since it only had one station. – then check out Boston’s Silver Line tunnel. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M95c7SNas4)

I do get the feeling that you are having difficulty imagining Ottawa’s downtown with a bus tunnel. Ottawa was running about 200 buses an hour along Slater. If 150 of those had been put underground, there would have been room to grow the system (up to about 220 buses in the tunnel) before any extra would have needed to be added back to the surface. I doubt that it would have been the disaster that you imply.

That said, your statement about the cost to run single-seat service echoes mine. If OC Transpo had to run 250-275 express buses per hour plus the rest of the bus network, the operating cost would be very high. This is why I said that the decision to convert most of the Transitway to trains was primarily one based on economics, not on having too many buses on Slater and Albert – although the latter is one of the symptoms that prompted a decision to be made.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The biggest motivation was not cost savings. Not sure why this myth persists. Has everybody forgotten the bus conga lines through the core? The system was going to collapse if it kept trying to put more and more buses through the downtown core.

Yes that was a big motivator of the tunnel. Well the every good transit trip starts with an escalator was the largest reason to not have a "Tram"

Ironically with Electric busses we could have a great and unique system if we built a bus tunnel. One Seat and rapid at the end.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, phil235, I can imagine a bus tunnel under Downtown Ottawa. It is not impossible for buses to run underground, nor to have below-grade bus stations. Ottawa had the St. Laurent Transitway station, as an example. If you don’t think of that as a long enough tunnel – since it only had one station. – then check out Boston’s Silver Line tunnel. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M95c7SNas4)

I do get the feeling that you are having difficulty imagining Ottawa’s downtown with a bus tunnel. Ottawa was running about 200 buses an hour along Slater. If 150 of those had been put underground, there would have been room to grow the system (up to about 220 buses in the tunnel) before any extra would have needed to be added back to the surface. I doubt that it would have been the disaster that you imply.

I'm not saying that a tunnel is impossible, just that it isn't desirable. I've been on the Silver Line, as well as the tunnel in Seattle, so I have seen a couple of them in action. The Silver Line tunnel hosts a single line (4 branches of it), so not quite as complex as what you are suggesting. Seattle is closer to what we would be talking about and the tunnel and stations are massive (and quite unpleasant for users). It was converted to rail in 2019 because it became inefficient as bus routes increased. Maybe not a disaster, but far less than ideal.

The real issue is the cost and inefficiency of one-seat commuter buses, which we agree on.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Jihn M

Interesting discussion. Would it be technically possible at some point to extend the Line 2 high platform trains along the original proposed 2006 route (ie from Bayview and along Albert and Slater in opposite directions), making use of the kind of sidewalk located ramps for boarding/disembarking used on the Calgary C train downtown? At least, that would eliminate one of the transfers to the Airport and would provide a higher overall capacity to deliver passengers all the way downtown by rail. I appreciate that, even if technically feasible, there would be not much point pursuing the idea further in the absence of considering other steps to double track all or many sections of the current Line.

I was hoping a technical expert would jump in, but I would say possible to extend, but very complex, as you have different technologies at play. Line 2 trains are diesel and essentially commuter trains, so not well-suited for running on city streets. Unless you convert line 2 to the line 1 technology (involving electrification and rebuilding the stations to accommodate low-floor trains), you are looking at creating another surface right of way parallel to line 1, and you would have no easy transfers downtown as the lines would be a few blocks apart. If you are going to do that, I think you bite the bullet and change over so the trains can be interlined downtown. Look for that in a century or so.

[Richard Eade]

I’m thinking, phil235, that Jihn M might be thinking the following:

Whereas most of the OC Transpo buses crossing downtown have been replaced by Line 1 of the O-Train; and

Whereas the loudest complaint about downtown portion of the old N/S O-Train plan was that the roadway would be completely clogged with BOTH buses and trains;

Be-it-resolved that the northern end, from Bayview to uOttawa, of the old N/S O-Train plan be revived so that Line 2 diesel trains can be run between Limebank Station and uOttawa Station, using at-grade tracks along Slater and/or Albert.

However, I am also thinking that such a proposal ignores the fact that some STO buses have been moved onto Albert & Slater, even though the streets have been (I believe – or are planned to be) reconfigured to remove most of the transit-specific infrastructure.

And a question for you, phil235: Why do you appear to want all of the transit activity to be in one corridor? As long as there is an easy connection between the lines (say, a pedestrian tunnel-ramp under the short-block of O’Connor, between Albert and Queen), why not spread out the crowds?

[I’m not picking on you, phil235. It is just that you seem to be thinking about this and coming up with good ideas and comments.]

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I’m thinking, phil235, that Jihn M might be thinking the following:

Whereas most of the OC Transpo buses crossing downtown have been replaced by Line 1 of the O-Train; and

Whereas the loudest complaint about downtown portion of the old N/S O-Train plan was that the roadway would be completely clogged with BOTH buses and trains;

Be-it-resolved that the northern end, from Bayview to uOttawa, of the old N/S O-Train plan be revived so that Line 2 diesel trains can be run between Limebank Station and uOttawa Station, using at-grade tracks along Slater and/or Albert.

However, I am also thinking that such a proposal ignores the fact that some STO buses have been moved onto Albert & Slater, even though the streets have been (I believe – or are planned to be) reconfigured to remove most of the transit-specific infrastructure.

And a question for you, phil235: Why do you appear to want all of the transit activity to be in one corridor? As long as there is an easy connection between the lines (say, a pedestrian tunnel-ramp under the short-block of O’Connor, between Albert and Queen), why not spread out the crowds?

[I’m not picking on you, phil235. It is just that you seem to be thinking about this and coming up with good ideas and comments.]

Ha, no worries.

I'm not necessarily advocating for one corridor, though that would be ideal. Surface rapid transit, whether it be buses or trains à la Calgary, has a pretty large effect on the streets they run on. I would be loath to sacrifice another downtown street unless absolutely necessary. Especially for those massive diesel Line 2 trains. I'd also say that a walk of a few blocks between transfers is not the end of the world, but it's also not ideal when you are building an integrated system.

You are right, Albert and Slater are configured for use by STO buses and a few OC Transpo routes, so those would very likely need to be moved if you went to a surface train.

[SkeggsEggs]

Arrived at Tunney's last night while Routes 57, 61, 62, and 63 are in their 30 minute spacing.

All scheduled to depart within a 7-9 minute window. If one is unlucky, they have a 21 minute wait to catch a bus to Westboro? (or I guess walk all the way to the other side of Tunney's to the Barhaven stop)

Flashbacks to heading home from Carleton looking for a 61 or 62 to Terry Fox and needing to wait 25 minutes at Bayview as both buses came within minutes of each other.

I am sure there is some kind of rationale or limiting factor for this but you'd think they would try and space out some routes that overlap.

[Dengler Avenue]

^ I find it equally frustrating when 62 and 168 don’t form alternating 15-minute frequencies on Campeau Drive or when 63 and 110 don’t do that around Morgan’s Grant. The same goes for 57 and 11 from Bayshore to Lincoln’s Field.
Things like this go a long way in encouraging ridership.

[Dengler Avenue]

That said, I heard that the new schedule is out in August. Will OCTranspo take public inputs and modify accordingly?

[Jihn M]

Thanks, Richard. You were able to summarize my points more succinctly than I was.
It strikes me that it would be a big mistake to identify interconnectivity between Line 2 with 1 and 3 as more important than preserving the ability to someday deliver two separate lines directly into the centre of Ottawa. Interconnectivity would face enormous, perhaps fatal, cost barriers, particularly if it presupposes that either Line 2 is someday switched to low platform trains like Citadis or Lines 1 and 4 are someday switched to a high platform Metro Lite system.
In the event that Lines 1 and 3 can be brought up to full working order (new wheel assemblies from Alstom), then Stage 3 extension of the lines is at least a straightforward proposition. The bigger problem remains with the slow, infrequent service on Line 2 with no path forward sketched out, however delayed.
To keep options open, it would make sense to reserve Albert and Slater for a Line 2 corridor downtown, so as to eventually contribute to broader plans for faster Line 2 transit times and to increase capacity to the core. Line 2 extension to Ottawa U could some day be by either surface rail or a second downtown tunnel. While it is okay to have Gatineau buses using Albert and Slater in the short run, I would hope that thought could be given now to switching them to a Wellington Street transit mall. Initially, this could serve buses but could be designed to switch to trains in the future. I am under the impression that some of this work may have already been done by the feds.
A really useful thing would be a serious, objective study, with ample public input as to what options might exist, and what ball park costs attend, for turning Line 2 into something much more serviceable. It could be structured to be entirely future oriented, leaving entirely one side how we got where we are today.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

Arrived at Tunney's last night while Routes 57, 61, 62, and 63 are in their 30 minute spacing.

All scheduled to depart within a 7-9 minute window. If one is unlucky, they have a 21 minute wait to catch a bus to Westboro? (or I guess walk all the way to the other side of Tunney's to the Barhaven stop)

Flashbacks to heading home from Carleton looking for a 61 or 62 to Terry Fox and needing to wait 25 minutes at Bayview as both buses came within minutes of each other.

I am sure there is some kind of rationale or limiting factor for this but you'd think they would try and space out some routes that overlap.

93 and 94 have done the same to me departing Leitrim in Findlay Creek. 92 and 90 departing Greenboro. Pretty sure OC Transpo just hates us all. You would think new ways to bus would have optimized some of these things. I can't see why they run things this way.

[ponyboycurtis]

Also... we got a new train reviews from a transit channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn5v2YEPIlg

How do I embed the videos thumbnail?

[AuxTown]

You just put the YouTube alphanumeric tag (nn5v2YEPIlg in this case) in the YouTube tag

• Video Link

Can I get a big wuh wuuuuuh

Hit the nail on the head with that video. Hopefully, the Line 1 issues at least will be somewhat remedied over the next couple of years.