Ottawa Transit Developments

[nfitz]

I think this plan is ill conceived.

The section that goes to Ottawa should not be their own LRT system; it should be an extension of the O-Train (Trillium Line) that would extend and replace the 'Rapidbus' section of the Gatineau network. The Trillium Line would then be re-branded into a regional train service.

Looking at the map, that's only a small fraction of this plan, across the Prince of Wales Bridge. I don't see that the Trillium line would work over the Alexandra Bridge, Laurier Street, or Boulevard Alexandre-Taché.

At the same time, this allows light rail cars from Gatineau to reach the Bayview interchange station between the Trillium and Confederation light rail lines. If the Trillium line was extended one further stop to Alexandre-Taché then many travellers from Gatineau would have to change twice to get to downtown Ottawa, instead of once.

If they ever do build light-rail along the BRT Rapidbus line (green below) then perhaps that should be revisited ... though optimally, I'd think running both the Trillium line and the Gatineau LRT over the bridge might be optimal. Though with the current single-track span over the Ottawa that would present challenges!

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Looking at the map, that's only a small fraction of this plan, across the Prince of Wales Bridge. I don't see that the Trillium line would work over the Alexandra Bridge, Laurier Street, or Boulevard Alexandre-Taché.

At the same time, this allows light rail cars from Gatineau to reach the Bayview interchange station between the Trillium and Confederation light rail lines. If the Trillium line was extended one further stop to Alexandre-Taché then many travellers from Gatineau would have to change twice to get to downtown Ottawa, instead of once.

If they ever do build light-rail along the BRT Rapidbus line (green below) then perhaps that should be revisited ... though optimally, I'd think running both the Trillium line and the Gatineau LRT over the bridge might be optimal. Though with the current single-track span over the Ottawa that would present challenges!

View attachment 189917

The map is a bit out of date with the latest proposal, where the SLR actually uses the Portage bridge and connects with Lyon station, and the Trillium line is extended across to Terrasses de Chaudière

 

[nfitz]

The map is a bit out of date with the latest proposal, where the SLR actually uses the Portage bridge and connects with Lyon station, and the Trillium line is extended across to Terrasses de Chaudière

I only looked at what was provided in the article linked above! That should improve the proposal.

One one hand, that will force more transfers for those that want to head further west in downtown. On the other hand, using the Portage bridge, will get people to the west side of downtown, rather than Alexandria, that would dump people east of the canal at the Rideau Centre!

 

[Allandale25]

The map is a bit out of date with the latest proposal, where the SLR actually uses the Portage bridge and connects with Lyon station, and the Trillium line is extended across to Terrasses de Chaudière

Would you know where a copy of that map exists? IE the latest proposal

 

[adrianaliu]

has anyone considered using prince of wales as a brt bridge as is the case on the other old rail bridge further north in gatineau, that would allow brt service north along the rapibus and west into aylmer to cross over and connect directly to both o-train lines at bayview. lrt in gatineau doesn't seem justified to me.

 

[Aylmer]

The problem is that the STO is forecasting over 6000 pphpd from western Gatineau towards Ottawa at peak by time the system opens. And eventually, the northern and eastern trunks are set to be converted, more than doubling that number. Ottawa's LRT line is expected to only be able to handle an extra 1000 pphpd between Bayview and Lyon by 2031 - the busiest stretch of the system, already handling all the commuters from the populous West End, Kanata, South End, Riverside, and Barrhaven. Basically, drawing Gatineau lines to Bayview is like adding 15 000+ passengers per hour to Bloor/Yonge.

 

[Aylmer]

Would you know where a copy of that map exists? IE the latest proposal

From the on-going consultations. There's also a write-up about the various scenarios.

Prince of Wales Bridge

If the Prince of Wales Bridge were chosen to be part of the structuring system, riders going to Ottawa would have to transfer to Ottawa's light rail at Bayview station.


However, the light rail section between Tunney's Pasture and Lyon stations will be the busiest along the Confederation Line. There would not be enough space to accommodate all riders coming from Gatineau.


From this aspect, the Prince of Wales Bridge does not meet the needs of the current study and has not been retained. However, its use is still relevant for a secondary link between Ottawa and Gatineau. In fact, it has been identified in Ottawa's transportation plan in the ultimate network concept.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Fascinating, thanks.

 

[nfitz]

Ottawa's LRT line is expected to only be able to handle an extra 1000 pphpd between Bayview and Lyon by 2031 - the busiest stretch of the system, already handling all the commuters from the populous West End, Kanata, South End, Riverside, and Barrhaven.

That doesn't sound right. Their website says each car can carry 300 passengers, and they can run in 2-car trains - so 600 passengers in a 97-metre long train.

Why would they be able to add less than 2 trains an hour by 2031? I thought they only had 19 two-car trainsets on day 1 (increased from the original 17). At most that means 16 trains in service if only 16% spares ... 15 is more likely.

If the end-to-end travel time is 25 minutes, and if assuming s a 5-minute turnaround time ... probably about 15 trains an hour is current maximum - a train every 4 minutes. That's a capacity of about 9,000 an hour. How isn't this easily increased to 18,000 an hour with trains every 2 minutes? Ultimately, I'd think 24,000 an hour would be feasible with trains every 90 seconds.

I"m not seeing how it can only handle an extra 1,000 - that seems low. Have I missed something? Hmm, those may be crush numbers, comparing to the TTC Flexity - where you'd get 420 in 97-metres (obviously the wider Metrolinx Flexity and Alstom cars are wider with less seats, so will have a higher capacity - but I can't think it's nearly 50% higher!). But still, if they are going to be able to run only every 4 minutes, they should be able to more than double the day 1 capacity.

Are the stations restricted to 97-metre long trains? I haven't really paid much attention.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

That doesn't sound right. Their website says each car can carry 300 passengers, and they can run in 2-car trains - so 600 passengers in a 97-metre long train.

Why would they be able to add less than 2 trains an hour by 2031? I thought they only had 19 two-car trainsets on day 1 (increased from the original 17). At most that means 16 trains in service if only 16% spares ... 15 is more likely.

If the end-to-end travel time is 25 minutes, and if assuming s a 5-minute turnaround time ... probably about 15 trains an hour is current maximum - a train every 4 minutes. That's a capacity of about 9,000 an hour. How isn't this easily increased to 18,000 an hour with trains every 2 minutes? Ultimately, I'd think 24,000 an hour would be feasible with trains every 90 seconds.

I"m not seeing how it can only handle an extra 1,000 - that seems low. Have I missed something? Hmm, those may be crush numbers, comparing to the TTC Flexity - where you'd get 420 in 97-metres. But still, if they are going to be able to run only every 4 minutes, they should be able to more than double the day 1 capacity.

Are the stations restricted to 97-metre long trains? I haven't really paid much attention.

I believe that's a typo, the capacity is 10k if it were actually open right now, and with more trains can go up to 20k with higher frequency. The trains are designed to allow one more module, bringing then to 59m long so 118m coupled. This requires a platform extension on the surface stations to be built (there's an allowance), the underground ones are already at the full 120m length. They'll add frequency first, and lengthen trains later if that's not enough

Edit: it should be noted Ottawa uses 90m platforms for 97m trains. The system is setup so that the cabs stop beyond the platform, while all the doors line up fine with the platform. The TTC should really consider something similar for Line 1, they might be able to squeeze in a full 7th car, considering right now it's 136m trains for 150m platforms

 

[nfitz]

I guess that's what Toronto is getting on Line 6 then, which will have the same cars.

Seems like there's plenty of capacity then. 10K would be at the 4-minute current frequency (if I got that math right). So dropping to 2 minutes would get you to 20K. Going to every 90 seconds (which is surely possible) would give you an ultimate capacity of 26,666. But if you can extend the cars from 48 m to 59 m, that would give you an ultimate capacity of closer to 33,000 an hour.

Though I'm not sure why the starting point is 10,000 ... when it seems like 9,000 to me ... especially if that's crush capacity, not peak design capacity.(as I noted in the Montreal thread), you can run crush capacity every 4 to 5 minutes. And perhaps faster. But by the time you get to ultimate, you are going to have to go with peak design capacity, or else you'll not achieve the desired dwell times.

 

[OCCheetos]

Though I'm not sure why the starting point is 10,000 ... when it seems like 9,000 to me ... especially if that's crush capacity, not peak design capacity.(as I noted in the Montreal thread), you can run crush capacity every 4 to 5 minutes. And perhaps faster. But by the time you get to ultimate, you are going to have to go with peak design capacity, or else you'll not achieve the desired dwell times.

Peak transit use through the core is currently closer to 11,000pphpd and launch capacity is actually supposed to be 10,400pphpd. There was enough concern about the launch capacity of the line that they ordered two extra (two-car) trainsets which are already nearing completion.

 

[nfitz]

Peak transit use through the core is currently closer to 11,000pphpd and launch capacity is actually supposed to be 10,400pphpd. There was enough concern about the launch capacity of the line that they ordered two extra (two-car) trainsets which are already nearing completion.

That's why I used 19 trainsets instead of 17 trainsets in my calculation above.

Hang on ... how does that work? I'm getting 9,000 using their 600 capacity per train, that I'm concerned may already be crush capacity rather than peak design capacity. And that was WITH the 2 extra trainsets.

And then, if the current demand is 11,000, wouldn't that be higher with the faster and more convenient trains, if there's any latent demand? Do they expect to lose ridership - that would be unusual.

I'd have thought they'd have targeted a day one capacity of 15,000 ... 31 or 32 trainsets! I suppose the saving grace is that they have 15 more trainsets coming for Phase 2 ...so might be able to expedite.

Or is my math completely wrong? I'm using their capacities and travel times off their website. Are they assuming a lower-than-normal spare capacity? I can't see how they'd get more than 16 trainsets out in peak ... but that still only get's you 9,600 capacity instead of 9,000.

Hang on ... is 11,000 current ridership correct? Is it really per direction? The total into downtown from both directions would make more sense for that number of trains.

 

[Aylmer]

That doesn't sound right. Their website says each car can carry 300 passengers, and they can run in 2-car trains - so 600 passengers in a 97-metre long train.

Why would they be able to add less than 2 trains an hour by 2031? I thought they only had 19 two-car trainsets on day 1 (increased from the original 17). At most that means 16 trains in service if only 16% spares ... 15 is more likely.

If the end-to-end travel time is 25 minutes, and if assuming s a 5-minute turnaround time ... probably about 15 trains an hour is current maximum - a train every 4 minutes. That's a capacity of about 9,000 an hour. How isn't this easily increased to 18,000 an hour with trains every 2 minutes? Ultimately, I'd think 24,000 an hour would be feasible with trains every 90 seconds.

I"m not seeing how it can only handle an extra 1,000 - that seems low. Have I missed something? Hmm, those may be crush numbers, comparing to the TTC Flexity - where you'd get 420 in 97-metres (obviously the wider Metrolinx Flexity and Alstom cars are wider with less seats, so will have a higher capacity - but I can't think it's nearly 50% higher!). But still, if they are going to be able to run only every 4 minutes, they should be able to more than double the day 1 capacity.

Are the stations restricted to 97-metre long trains? I haven't really paid much attention.

I don't know exactly how they arrived at the numbers, but it was the ones that the STO provided us with during the consultation. Keep in mind that these are 2031 projections, so they'll be well higher than today's demand.

The point is that Ottawa is (probably rightfully) concerned about its ability to accommodate a significant load of new passengers at Bayview in the medium term (15+ years). Considering Gatineau's project is set to be completed around 2028, it would be a short-term project by day 1.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

That's why I used 19 trainsets instead of 17 trainsets in my calculation above.

Hang on ... how does that work? I'm getting 9,000 using their 600 capacity per train, that I'm concerned may already be crush capacity rather than peak design capacity. And that was WITH the 2 extra trainsets.

And then, if the current demand is 11,000, wouldn't that be higher with the faster and more convenient trains, if there's any latent demand? Do they expect to lose ridership - that would be unusual.

I'd have thought they'd have targeted a day one capacity of 15,000 ... 31 or 32 trainsets! I suppose the saving grace is that they have 15 more trainsets coming for Phase 2 ...so might be able to expedite.

Or is my math completely wrong? I'm using their capacities and travel times off their website. Are they assuming a lower-than-normal spare capacity? I can't see how they'd get more than 16 trainsets out in peak ... but that still only get's you 9,600 capacity instead of 9,000.

Hang on ... is 11,000 current ridership correct? Is it really per direction? The total into downtown from both directions would make more sense for that number of trains.

They claim its 10000ish pphd bus into downtown and the original plan for the confed line was every 3.5 minutes. They reduced the plan to every 4 minutes on launch day from the original numbers they touted (realizing they need 17 pairs to meet that) but they never changed the 10k initial capacity they claimed.

It was all so tagt they could to be "on time and on budget", and we've seen how that turned out. The one plus to the delay is that the next 4 trains ordered are almost ready, meaning they should be able to get down to that 3.5 minute frequency soon.