Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[lrt's friend]

And can we just clarify the difference between LRT and ALRT?

The A in ALRT stands for automated, which means there is no driver. The other implication is that the ALRT corridor has to have a 100% exclusive right of way. There can be no level crossings, not even barrier controlled, and no pedestrian crossings and if the right of way is at grade, there has to be security fencing, since you cannot allow pedestrians (or pets or wildlife) to wander onto the tracks. A train with no driver cannot stop if a pedestrian is in the way. A good way to commit suicide I suppose, but we don't want to make that easy.

I have been concerned about ALRT because of most of our proposed system is at grade. This means several kilometres of high security fencing will have to be added to our Transitway corridors. Not exactly an aesthetic enhancement to our city and particularly to the potential Ottawa River Parkway corridor. It also means that we will not be able to integrate a Carling streetcar with the rest of the rail network without very costly 100% grade separation. If the Carling streetcar operates separately, then we will have to build yet another maintenance yard, connected to the Carling streetcar.

Vancouver is a good example of ALRT but almost all of it runs elevated or underground mostly eliminating unsightly security fencing except for a short distance in an industrial area near Vancouver airport.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is exactly my concern and the fact that ice build up will be a much more serious problem here than in Toronto.

You can put a pantograph on a skytrain, it isn't like it would cost much more on the size of the order Ottawa will be making.

Most of Ottawa's problems seem to stem from an inability to make tough choices. Can't do ALRT, ugly fences. Can't run 5 car trains to begin with to reduce operating expenses because of a weird obsession with 2 min frequencies. (which would be some of the most frequent non-ALRT transit in the world). Can't make a firm decision on trainsets and design stations to them (here is a clue, no one produces LRT trainsets that are longer than 125 m!). Can't prioritize one side of the transit way to fully convert so must make both sides non-functional in the first stage (a smart plan would be to build out fully in one direction, buying you years of enough capacity in buses for the other leg) Can't produce a plan where the NCC was consulted enough that you don't need to be sent back to the drawing board once the plan is approved.

One way I think the city could pay for expansion to the other side of the green belt would be to do MRT style land development around stations on green land, and on stations with underused city owned land.

I can't even begin to understand how long all these processes have taken for you! and Now you have to do an environmental assesment of a development inside built up area? It doesn't take a genius to figure out it will impact the environment where it is built, and help the environment overall as a transit improvement.

The process seems designed to accomplish nothing, and to expose the futility of democracy and government. I am surprised anything ever gets done there at all!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It also means that we will not be able to integrate a Carling streetcar with the rest of the rail network without very costly 100% grade separation. If the Carling streetcar operates separately, then we will have to build yet another maintenance yard, connected to the Carling streetcar.

This basically is unfounded. Many Europeean cities use the same maintenance facilities for both. You have streetcars that can get power from a third rail when on the "metro" tracks, and pantographs elsewhere. It's an non-issue. Some cities even have low-level and high-level platforms on the same tracks, because both train sets are sharing the infrastructure.

Anyways, I agree with kyle, personally I was never afraid to make tough decisions, so probably that's why I see things simplified. Right now, we have a jack-of-all-trades plan on the table, which tries to satisfy everybody, but satisfies no one, well except for the tunnel, and even there, it's half-baked.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

You can put a pantograph on a skytrain, it isn't like it would cost much more on the size of the order Ottawa will be making.

Most of Ottawa's problems seem to stem from an inability to make tough choices. Can't do ALRT, ugly fences. Can't run 5 car trains to begin with to reduce operating expenses because of a weird obsession with 2 min frequencies. (which would be some of the most frequent non-ALRT transit in the world). Can't make a firm decision on trainsets and design stations to them (here is a clue, no one produces LRT trainsets that are longer than 125 m!). Can't prioritize one side of the transit way to fully convert so must make both sides non-functional in the first stage (a smart plan would be to build out fully in one direction, buying you years of enough capacity in buses for the other leg) Can't produce a plan where the NCC was consulted enough that you don't need to be sent back to the drawing board once the plan is approved.

One way I think the city could pay for expansion to the other side of the green belt would be to do MRT style land development around stations on green land, and on stations with underused city owned land.

I can't even begin to understand how long all these processes have taken for you! and Now you have to do an environmental assesment of a development inside built up area? It doesn't take a genius to figure out it will impact the environment where it is built, and help the environment overall as a transit improvement.

The process seems designed to accomplish nothing, and to expose the futility of democracy and government. I am surprised anything ever gets done there at all!

LRT doesn't provide more throughput. LRT doesn't increase ridership. LRT isn't cheaper, all things considered. I think the real reason no decision can be made is because LRT is the wrong solution. The right path is to build the tunnel and keep running our buses (double-articulated trolley or hybrid on the transitway) and when demand reaches 20,000 per direction per hour or so (if ever), move to a proper metro system. This is what Andrew Haydon determined.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

You can put a pantograph on a skytrain, it isn't like it would cost much more on the size of the order Ottawa will be making.

Most of Ottawa's problems seem to stem from an inability to make tough choices. Can't do ALRT, ugly fences. Can't run 5 car trains to begin with to reduce operating expenses because of a weird obsession with 2 min frequencies. (which would be some of the most frequent non-ALRT transit in the world). Can't make a firm decision on trainsets and design stations to them (here is a clue, no one produces LRT trainsets that are longer than 125 m!). Can't prioritize one side of the transit way to fully convert so must make both sides non-functional in the first stage (a smart plan would be to build out fully in one direction, buying you years of enough capacity in buses for the other leg) Can't produce a plan where the NCC was consulted enough that you don't need to be sent back to the drawing board once the plan is approved.

One way I think the city could pay for expansion to the other side of the green belt would be to do MRT style land development around stations on green land, and on stations with underused city owned land.

I can't even begin to understand how long all these processes have taken for you! and Now you have to do an environmental assesment of a development inside built up area? It doesn't take a genius to figure out it will impact the environment where it is built, and help the environment overall as a transit improvement.

The process seems designed to accomplish nothing, and to expose the futility of democracy and government. I am surprised anything ever gets done there at all!

A lot of what you are seeing is disagreements amongst posters. I don't believe the type of technology will be a major stumbling block. I do believe that an acceptable transitway conversion strategy will be developed.

The major challenge is the expectation to use federal parkland for the rail right of way despite federal resistance. This has also ignited local public concern and this will intensify as this part of the project is further developed. It is inevitable and this is why you are seeing some people urging at least the serious examination of an alternative route (Carling). This has the potential of blowing up LRT plans for the western half of the city although many disagree.

A lot of what is happening relates to the politicization of LRT which all started when a federal minister overruled the will of City Council and ended up pitting city councillors against each other and local provincial Liberals against local federal Conservatives and led to the defeat of a Liberal pro-LRT mayor and replacement with a Conservative under shady circumstances. The criminal court case is set for next spring. This has set back the project by at least a decade.

I am very skeptical whether any of this project will proceed because of cost escalation, and the limited benefits of the first phase and the Seimens lawsuit. 'I will believe it when I see it' is my thinking and this feeling is shared by many members of the public. When the latest plan was approved, there was a general 'ho-hum' reaction from the public. Most people have lost enthusiasm for light rail. Many see it as something that will happen after they are dead. I recall a younger guy at a public consultation meeting saying exactly that to anybody who would listen to him.

In general, this whole project is complicated by federal involvement in planning in Ottawa and their ownership of so much key land around the city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

This basically is unfounded. Many Europeean cities use the same maintenance facilities for both. You have streetcars that can get power from a third rail when on the "metro" tracks, and pantographs elsewhere. It's an non-issue. Some cities even have low-level and high-level platforms on the same tracks, because both train sets are sharing the infrastructure.

Anyways, I agree with kyle, personally I was never afraid to make tough decisions, so probably that's why I see things simplified. Right now, we have a jack-of-all-trades plan on the table, which tries to satisfy everybody, but satisfies no one, well except for the tunnel, and even there, it's half-baked.

I cannot see both automated trains and manned trains sharing the same track for safety reasons. How can you have automation when some trains are manually controlled? This is my point. It is for this reason, Carling streetcars will not have access to a maintenance yard planned for the east end or south end. We will need to find a location for another maintenance yard in the west end, which may end up being shared but no suitable location has been identified.

Also, we are designing a system from scratch. There is no reason to develop a more complicated and more expensive plan with trains needing multiple power accesses and multiple level platforms. This has happened in certain cities simply because legacy systems had to be maintained while new technology was introduced. It is an extra expense that can and should be avoided.

On your last point, I agree. The plan is a compromise that really satisfies nobody.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I cannot see both automated trains and manned trains sharing the same track for safety reasons. How can you have automation when some trains are manually controlled? This is my point. It is for this reason, Carling streetcars will not have access to a maintenance yard planned for the east end or south end. We will need to find a location for another maintenance yard in the west end, which may end up being shared but no suitable location has been identified.

On your last point, I agree. The plan is a compromise that really satisfies nobody.

You would be surprised how easy it is to implement. AI for trains are less resource intensive than a video game. You have signal outputs / inputs on your powered rail, than it gives the location of the train, it slows down and up in relation to the other trains near it. In manual mode, the other trains react like it was another automatic train. That's it.

Paris is implementing this technology on all their metro lines, to save money on drivers.

The multiple level platforms was just an example that it's easily done, not that it should be done here. Carling should be rapid transit. If it's a streetcar, it's a silly network, it should at least go up on Rideau St. and Montréal Rd, two busier streets.

You see everything complicated, that is the mindset of Ottawa, while it's done elsewhere and easily. Remember how many letters there were in the Citizen, because of the water leaks that a tunnel under the canal would bring? It's not even a challenge! Same thing for third rail, same thing for ALRT.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

And that's why automation resolves this problem, bulk of the costs is still with drivers with LRT.

How much do you save by getting rid of the driver? It can't be much more than $50 per train-hour? That does not make a big difference in the overall totals.

[lrt's friend]

If you look at the south plan, there will be level crossings. If we implement ALRT, we have to increase capital costs substantially to build a number of additional overpasses or underpasses, which will in themselves make it more difficult to integrate rapid transit into the community as originally intended.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you look at the south plan, there will be level crossings. If we implement ALRT, we have to increase capital costs substantially to build a number of additional overpasses or underpasses, which will in themselves make it more difficult to integrate rapid transit into the community as originally intended.

The new plan is grade separated rapid transit, so I dunno what will happen to these plans. This is one of the main issue with the last plan, the built a streetcar that was meant to do everything. The clear focus is still not there.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

How much do you save by getting rid of the driver? It can't be much more than $50 per train-hour? That does not make a big difference in the overall totals.

Actually it does. About 10M$ per year, and that's only with the start of the system...

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Actually it does. About 10M$ per year, and that's only with the start of the system...

If the cost of running a three-car LRT train is $516 per hour ($172 multiplied by three), it is difficult to see driver costs (even though they are paid well) being much more than 10% of this total. A small percentage like that would not materially change the results of my analysis with regard to the suburbs.

Whether the LRT inside the Greenbelt should be automated is something that should be the subject of a financial analysis to see whether the payback is attractive enough.

[waterloowarrior]

the automated trains on the Docklands Light Rail system still have an attendant in them, even though there is no driver. is it the same for other automated system?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Suzie

If the cost of running a three-car LRT train is $516 per hour ($172 multiplied by three), it is difficult to see driver costs (even though they are paid well) being much more than 10% of this total. A small percentage like that would not materially change the results of my analysis with regard to the suburbs.

Whether the LRT inside the Greenbelt should be automated is something that should be the subject of a financial analysis to see whether the payback is attractive enough.

The attraction of ALRT for suburbs is that you can have instead 3 one car ALRT trains, instead of one LRT 3-car train, for less costs. This means that higher frequency for suburbs is cheaper than lower frequency for LRT. This is why it's an interesting technology, even moreso for suburbs than for the city core.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

the automated trains on the Docklands Light Rail system still have an attendant in them, even though there is no driver. is it the same for other automated system?

Not for Vancouver.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The attraction of ALRT for suburbs is that you can have instead 3 one car ALRT trains, instead of one LRT 3-car train, for less costs. This means that higher frequency for suburbs is cheaper than lower frequency for LRT. This is why it's an interesting technology, even moreso for suburbs than for the city core.

That's actually a very good argument for automation. If you made the vehicles personal, imagine how great that would be.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Suzie

How much do you save by getting rid of the driver? It can't be much more than $50 per train-hour? That does not make a big difference in the overall totals.

Trying to compare ALRT and LRT in this way is hard, since when you switch to ALRT you have to decide whether you are comparing to the amount of drivers you have on LRT with conventional service levels, or how many drivers you would need to provide the same service level as ALRT on LRT.

You also have to start thinking about how much capital costs you will save from being able to deploy shorter stations (huge savings for the underground portion) and whether that outweighs the higher cost of seperating the full guideway.

I am not sure there they get the cost numbers for those Delcan reports, but Calgary's 2006 LRT costs were:

• Vehicle Maintenance costs: $13.9M(2006)
• Station Maintenance costs: $2.8M (2006)
• Right of Way Maintenance costs: $2.9M (2006)
• Signals Maintenance costs: $2.4M (2006)
• Average annual power costs: $4.8M (2006)
• Annual LRV Operator wages: $6.0M (includes fringe benefits of 21.57%) (2006)

For a total of 32.8 million, for 2006.

Now in 2006 you had:

Train hours of operation: (2006)
annual: 127,452
per weekday: 388

Working out to $257.35 per train hour of operation. Trains are all three cars, otherwise the statistics would say that each of Calgary's cars were in service for less than 4 hours a day in 2006... I think Delcan may have made a big booboo.

The marginal cost of adding another car to the train per hour of service:

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Franky

This is what Andrew Haydon determined.

Franky, please, to hell with Haydon and PRT.

The rest of you, this doesn't belong here. Go have fun in the "future of transit" thread.

Thanks.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

Franky, please, to hell with Haydon and PRT.

Attacking the person is nothing but rhetoric, try to refrain from using it.

When people exaggerate or flat out lie about LRT's "virtues", esp. WRT BRT, I feel compelled to respond in the same thread.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Franky

Attacking the person is nothing but rhetoric, try to refrain from using it.

When people exaggerate or flat out lie about LRT's "virtues", esp. WRT BRT, I feel compelled to respond in the same thread.

Well, I hate to break it to ya, but nor Hadon, nor PRT are in the official plan.
Therefor, they have NO place in this thread.

Can't you feel compeled to answer such sinful lies in
the proper thread?