Ottawa Transit Developments

[Streety McCarface]

I don't see that increasing dwell times. If someone is in the middle between doors in one of the two narrower areas, they have moved from their long before the vehicle stops. Even crush-loaded, I haven't seen lengthy, 3 people get off the streetcar, and wait for those getting off to slowly climb out, and then reboard, with the long wait for the new arrivals to get off the steps before the door closes.

This should be even a less of a problem on the Line 5, where even the peak demand approaching Eglinton West is only about 2/3 of peak capacity - so we shouldn't normally be seeing crush-capacity situations you see on streetcar lines, or on Line 1 and Line 2. Worst case scenario is that rarely there'll perhaps a slight delay at Cedarvale and Eglinton - but we see that all the time now on Line 1 and Line 2 interchange stations, despite being high-floor with more doors.

I can't fathom on how this is a problem in Waterloo - ridership doesn't seem that high even now with free fares. Shouldn't be very common at all once regular service starts. Though I haven't seen it yet ... perhaps I'll take transit up there for a meeting soon and check it out.

That sounds very extensive compared to even the TTC Flexities ... looking at some videos, it's about 2 seconds to close the door on a TTC Flexity. I don't think it's 1 second on a CLRV ... and you can't even close them immediately then, as people have to move away from the doors first.

I think you are exaggerating the problem. The only vehicles I really see a delay on, are the back doors of buses. Now that's slow.

I commute via the iON, and while it's too early to tell whether these patterns will be the norm, they are certainly affecting service currently. A lot of people tend to wait for the train to stop to allow for some commuters to get off the train, thereby allowing them more room to get through the crowds of people.

The thing we have to remember with transit systems is that average capacities don't matter, you need instantaneous data because the knock-on effects from one train can be significant. One train may be completely crush loaded and the train behind it may be only half full, leaving a utilized capacity of about 3/4. The difference is that the crush loaded train will spend nearly 3-4 times as long at the station while the half-full train behind it may only spend a few seconds stopped. That crush loaded train, because it is so full and is taking more time to travel its route, will delay trains behind it. Similar effects are guaranteed to happen on Eglinton, even with short-turns. The problem is made worse by the bad design of the vehicles, and the longer dwell times themselves, which will ultimately add a significant amount of time to a journey.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of iON trains running during the free period feel crush-loaded at 170-190 passengers — between 68 and 75% of the actual maximum capacity. Crosstown vehicles that are 2/3s full will feel crush loaded, this is unlike a subway car (or even a Scarborough LRT car), where a crush load will occur at or after it's specified maximum capacity (1450 passengers for a TR train).

I commute via the iON and work at UW, it's very common to see almost every train running after 10 to be standing room only, and to see afternoon trains completely full, to the point in which people have to wait for the next train. Obviously, this likely won't be the case come next tuesday, but the experiences from the traffic that occurred this week are apparent, and should raise concerns for other light rail projects in the region.

When I was counting the time it takes for doors to open, I started counting as soon as the train stopped. There is often a delay of between 2-3 seconds between the stopping of a flexity and the full opening of the doors. This video shows this but isn't particularly great:

Whereas on a CLRV, between the time the train stops and opens the doors can be between 1-2 seconds depending on the driver's reaction time (

). When it comes to closing doors, again, it really depends on how fast someone climbs the stairs. I don't think high floor streetcars are the future, but level boarding high floor LRT most certainly makes sense.
For iON Trains, it's just unbearably long, up to 7 seconds just to open the doors

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Just for easy comparison, here is a repost of my Citadis vid, witg doors opening vid around 1:20. The dwell time is at its programmed 20 seconds that it will have in real operations. In comparison the Ion dwell time in the post above seems excessive, but I don't think it's the vehicle itself that's the cause, but the way GRT chooses to operate

 

[nfitz]

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of iON trains running during the free period feel crush-loaded at 170-190 passengers — between 68 and 75% of the actual maximum capacity.

170, let alone 190, SHOULD feel crush loaded. It IS crush loaded. The peak capacity of a TTC Flexity is only 130 riders. You gain a bit more on the Ion Flexity with the extra doors, and slightly wider corridor, but lose the rear end, with the second cab. The Flexity is the same length as two CLRVs ... and they only have a peak capacity of 148, despite the more optimal high-floor layout.

I don't know who is saying that crush capacity on a Flexity is 250 ... but that's just impossible. Going to the CLRV ... peak capacity is 74. I've done a couple of counts over the years, when hanging over the steps, trying to keep my feet on the top ... it's about 85-88 people. You only add about 20% going from peak to crush capacity ... unless everyone has babies in their lap or something.

This doesn't sound like a door issue. It sounds like too full vehicles, that will disappear when people have to pay $ for fares. Either way ... one you exceed the design capacity of about 130 (maybe 140 on the Flexity Freedom), yes, it's going to make trips longer and increase dwell. Though on a relatively infrequent line, like Ion, with infrequent service, it will increase capacity, as you won't get bunching - as long as there's some extra streetcars available.

 

[Steve X]

Crush load numbers of 251 give out by manufacture (maximum capacity) is about 6 person per square meter. It means butts against another person with not even space to move. A person meaning normal non-obese person without bags, briefcases and purses. This is highly uncomfortable and cannot be used as a standard.

The capacity between the TTC streetcars and ION would be pretty similar. That 11 cm difference won't lead to an extra person standing in the aisles nor doors on both sides lead to more standing space. The only additional space on the Freedoms is the lack of on board vending machines and flip seats where the door is located. Maybe you can fit 10 more riders but not a lot more.

 

[drum118]

Crush load numbers of 251 give out by manufacture (maximum capacity) is about 6 person per square meter. It means butts against another person with not even space to move. A person meaning normal non-obese person without bags, briefcases and purses. This is highly uncomfortable and cannot be used as a standard.

The capacity between the TTC streetcars and ION would be pretty similar. That 11 cm difference won't lead to an extra person standing in the aisles nor doors on both sides lead to more standing space. The only additional space on the Freedoms is the lack of on board vending machines and flip seats where the door is located. Maybe you can fit 10 more riders but not a lot more.

Well!!!..........Someone else saying what I have being saying close to 2 decades that maximum capacity used by Manufactures and Transit System for Ridership is false. We are not the same size, shape, do carry things, wear winter clothes, have strollers/walkers/accessibility riders on vehicles and the list goes on that you will get 75% of the max number if that on any vehicle these day. I have challenge various manufacture and systems including TTC and Go to "Lets See The Max Numbers Contest" under various conditions with no takers over the years to prove X max number is true. TTC does use less max numbers for load factor, but still hight on various types of vehicles.

 

[smallspy]

The biggest thing that annoys me about the iON, aside from the train running much slower than it should (signals) is the fact that dwell times on the Flexity Freedom are abysmal. They might be a bit better on the Citadis, but that doesn't excuse the fact that low floor systems are almost certainly going to have insanely high dwell times. It might be fine in Waterloo or Hamilton, but on the Crosstown or Ottawa's LRT, it's a huge sacrifice for commuters. It's not uncommon to see a train at a station here wait more than 30-60 seconds to let people on and off. Sure, trains are fairly full, but they're designed to carry lots of people and to move them on and off the vehicles as quickly as possible, that is supposed to be a factor that differentiates rapid transit from the bus or the streetcar. Those 30 extra seconds per station can add up to 10 additional minutes at least of wasted commute time on the Crosstown, or at least 7 minutes on the Confederation line.

The dwell time of the cars is long because it is scheduled to be long. They are hoping to tighten up the timings after a couple of months of running as everyone gets more used to the system, but for the time being the scheduled dwell time at each station is about a full minute.

It has nothing to do with the vehicles.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

The dwell time of the cars is long because it is scheduled to be long. They are hoping to tighten up the timings after a couple of months of running as everyone gets more used to the system, but for the time being the scheduled dwell time at each station is about a full minute.

Oh my ... so are they doing this to get everyone used to how they won't be operating, so that they develop bad habits, and aren't ready to get off at their stop? Or is it to alienate potential riders early, with much longer travel times than necessary? Seems poor customer service either way ...

 

[Streety McCarface]

170, let alone 190, SHOULD feel crush loaded. It IS crush loaded. The peak capacity of a TTC Flexity is only 130 riders. You gain a bit more on the Ion Flexity with the extra doors, and slightly wider corridor, but lose the rear end, with the second cab. The Flexity is the same length as two CLRVs ... and they only have a peak capacity of 148, despite the more optimal high-floor layout.

I don't know who is saying that crush capacity on a Flexity is 250 ... but that's just impossible. Going to the CLRV ... peak capacity is 74. I've done a couple of counts over the years, when hanging over the steps, trying to keep my feet on the top ... it's about 85-88 people. You only add about 20% going from peak to crush capacity ... unless everyone has babies in their lap or something.

This doesn't sound like a door issue. It sounds like too full vehicles, that will disappear when people have to pay $ for fares. Either way ... one you exceed the design capacity of about 130 (maybe 140 on the Flexity Freedom), yes, it's going to make trips longer and increase dwell. Though on a relatively infrequent line, like Ion, with infrequent service, it will increase capacity, as you won't get bunching - as long as there's some extra streetcars available.

But that's the problem, the maximum capacity of the crosstown was calculated with that 250 passengers per vehicle — 250 passengers per vehicle * 3 vehicles per train * 20 trains per hour = 15,000 passengers per hour. A line opening with capacities that are supposed to be 2/3s of this peak load of 15,000 passengers is unreasonable, especially for a brand new line.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

But that's the problem, the maximum capacity of the crosstown was calculated with that 250 passengers per vehicle — 250 passengers per vehicle * 3 vehicles per train * 20 trains per hour = 15,000 passengers per hour. A line opening with capacities that are supposed to be 2/3s of this peak load of 15,000 passengers is unreasonable, especially for a brand new line.

Not necessarily, not all lines are equal. Unlike Line 1, which faces ever growing ridership (if people could get on the train) as more and more suburbia stretches North, Line 5 will maybe encourage some more densification, but it's already built up so won't see the same kind of sharp slope ridership growth

 

[Streety McCarface]

The dwell time of the cars is long because it is scheduled to be long. They are hoping to tighten up the timings after a couple of months of running as everyone gets more used to the system, but for the time being the scheduled dwell time at each station is about a full minute.

It has nothing to do with the vehicles.

Dan

Does that dwell time include train deceleration and acceleration? If so, then 1 minute is fairly reasonable for flexities regardless if scheduling buffers are built in it. There's no acceleration/deceleration data on the flexities currently, so I'll use a T1's acceleration instead. It accelerates at 0.85 m/s^2, decelerates at 1.3 m/s^2, and we'll assume that the train's initial and final speed is 13.9 m/s (50 km/h). Actual times are going to be longer because deceleration and acceleration are not constant at the maximum values, but I don't have specific data to interpolate. Regardless, with these assumptions, Deceleration time is about 11 seconds while acceleration is about 16.5 seconds, meaning there are about 32.5 seconds scheduled for the train to open doors, pick up passengers, close doors, and sound the gong. The doors take about 6 seconds to open, the closing procedure takes about 10 seconds, and the gong sounding takes about a second and a half, meaning that there are about 15 seconds for passengers to board and alight. Now, the doors open and close slow enough, but that's pretty much the case on all modern vehicles and that probably won't change any time soon. A subway/high floor LRT can usually board and alight in around 3-10 seconds, so that means 5 seconds are reasonably there as a buffer. It's not a hugely significant amount of time to consider, especially for a new line as a buffer

The driver's countdown clocks, when they are seen, count about 15 seconds, so this all seems reasonable.

The issue is that almost every train running midday is late, so it is within the operator's best interest to spend as little time at a station as possible. Regardless, it can still take at least 30 seconds at most stations to allow passengers to disembark and board. This is about 100% greater than the scheduled dwell time at stations. I'm arguing that the inherent internal design of the train is causing such long boarding times. When you factor in the doors, it feels like forever. There are obviously some factors that are affecting this boarding time (higher crowds than anticipated for this line, the rider mindset, and the key users, crossing gate closure), but that doesn't fully explain why these trains take forever for passengers to alight and board. There are just too many choke points in the vehicle to allow for efficient movement of passengers. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it, but it should be considered a potential burden for operators of low floor vehicles.

Not necessarily, not all lines are equal. Unlike Line 1, which faces ever growing ridership (if people could get on the train) as more and more suburbia stretches North, Line 5 will maybe encourage some more densification, but it's already built up so won't see the same kind of sharp slope ridership growth

The corridor currently sees 150K passengers per day, much higher than the 20K that is leading to overcrowding on the iON line. While the crosstown will run about 3.3 times as frequently as iON currently does during peak periods with 2 car trains, the line will still see at least 7.5* the ridership of iON. The capacity of the crosstown will be 6.6* that of iON, so it can theoretically cover the crowds initially (albeit very unreliably), but the corridor is projected to see at least 300K passengers per day within half a decade of service, and this makes sense since ridership typically doubles along a new rapid transit corridor when the service is introduced. This occurs because more transit lines (buses, streetcars, paratransit, etc) are typically funneled into the new line when it is constructed, after all, it's typically faster than the alternative. Riders also typically like the enhanced reliability of the Eglinton corridor, so they may choose to transit to Eglinton from corridors such as Lawrence, York Mills, or any of the smaller corridors that originally fed into the Yonge line. The crosstown only has provisions to add a third LRV to a train, meaning that overcrowding is very likely to occur even without considering new development. Light rail east of Don Mills was chosen because it would encourage redevelopment of Eglinton, so I wouldn't be surprised if new developments in that area severely affect ridership on the line and reliability of the line in the future.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

I'm still not quite buying it. A high floor vehicle only has more room if using longtiudinal seating, which only usually happens once the line is very crowded and they are trying to squeeze every last ounce of capacity. For the confed line, this actually would have been probably a smart idea, but they compensated with really long trains, it's starting with 10m longer trains than the crosstown maximum, and it's final 120m design would be the equivalent of four 5 module Flexities. With high floor it would likely have been like Vancouver, 80m platforms with REM like trains. But i don't think the low floor changes at all the alighting speed. We'll hopefully find out this summer if it opens at the latest predicted date. The confed line will likely be a better comparison for crosstown performance

Edit: using the citadis on the Crosstown and moving the Flexities to Finch would have been a good idea. Besides being slightly longer than 3 Flexities, you also would subtract two cabs and one coupler, which are wasted space. You can still use them with the 90m platforms, Ottawa's platforms are only 90m with the train extending beyond the ends.

 

[OCCheetos]

The Confederation Line is scheduled to have 30-45 second dwell times depending on the station and time of day.

 

[robmausser]

From observing the Flexities in Toronto, the biggest cause of major dwell time delay is not people getting on and off the streetcar, but its the slow doors compounded by the door buttons. I personally believe that there shouldnt be door buttons. Let the operator open the doors when someone is at the stop or a stop is requested.

Ive seen a streetcar stop at a stop, and have the doors open and close 3 to 4 times while people try to run to get on the streetcar. The slower doors make this situation even worse.

I'm guessing that the Ottawa LRT will not have door buttons since this is run more like a metro

 

[rbt]

I'm guessing that the Ottawa LRT will not have door buttons since this is run more like a metro

Paris, the origin of the "metro" term, takes issue with door buttons not being allowed on a metro.

 

[OCCheetos]

I'm guessing that the Ottawa LRT will not have door buttons since this is run more like a metro

The Citadis Spirits (in Ottawa) are equipped with door buttons, but they will only be used in off-peak periods or at certain stations where there aren't many passengers getting on/off.