HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 6:31 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
What can I say, we are only building a 12.5km rail line, and it does not serve growth areas. This is all seems reasonable that we will need more and more buses.

I have to say that I am shocked that we will have to descend 10 storeys by escalator. How much time will this take? How does this compare with downtown Montreal and Toronto?
Generally, the stations in Montreal and Toronto are much more shallow - they were cut & cover lines. I believe Montreal went down about 10m to avoid expropriation costs, but Toronto's are practically right under the surface.

Montreal has a few deeper platforms due to difficult soil conditions or the tunnel needing to go under an obstacle. I think Montreal's deepest platform is about 29.6m down so about what most of ours will be.

I do not know the depth of Toronto's deepest station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 1:12 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I have to say that I am shocked that we will have to descend 10 storeys by escalator. How much time will this take? How does this compare with downtown Montreal and Toronto?
Downtown stations were built as cut and cover, so you can't really compare. It's about 2-3 storeys max. Though having more stations wouldn't been an issue in Ottawa if cut and cover would have been used, since they cost a lot less than underground megastructures as planned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 5:13 PM
jcollins jcollins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kitchener
Posts: 1,148
Since the entrance is through a private building, how will that work? Incorporate it in a new building? Pay the current building owner for access?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 5:30 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
OK, since the existing Transitway Bridge over the O-Train is to be torn out and replaced, based on the recommended plan, what about just removing it and extending the trench?



In this concept, the trench is extended so that the W-E LRT passes under Bayview Road and merges with the O-Train before the station. This station is an inexpensive, single level, side platform station.

The green shading shows land consolidated for re-development. The blue shaded area is a new (temporary) bus facility.

(Eventually, the large area west of the new train station will be developed once the bus lay-by is no longer needed - maybe with a sports complex.)

Comments?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 5:36 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,407
Great job!



But I just wonder how that would affect the Lebreton station...

__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 6:11 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,810
Will that leave the Prince of Wales Bridge essentially unuseable especially as a possible future replacement of Rapidbus?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 6:12 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,810
Transport Canada report considers $600M pricetag for downtown tunnel too optimistic. Reported on CFRA at 2:00pm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 8:14 PM
Ryersonian Ryersonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 91
Tunney's

How is the first section of LRT going to work; is it from Tunney's to Blair? How the heck are they going to get everything turned around there? I suppose the rail could just go back the way it came?

What's the timeline? About all I know is the EA will be done in this winter (hopefully).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted May 4, 2009, 9:05 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryersonian View Post
How is the first section of LRT going to work; is it from Tunney's to Blair? How the heck are they going to get everything turned around there? I suppose the rail could just go back the way it came?

What's the timeline? About all I know is the EA will be done in this winter (hopefully).
What do you mean turned? These are bidirectional trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 2:03 AM
Rathgrith's Avatar
Rathgrith Rathgrith is offline
I'm just joking.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryersonian View Post
How is the first section of LRT going to work; is it from Tunney's to Blair? How the heck are they going to get everything turned around there? I suppose the rail could just go back the way it came?

What's the timeline? About all I know is the EA will be done in this winter (hopefully).
Think of LRT trains as bisexuals.... they go both ways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 2:39 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist View Post
Great job!



But I just wonder how that would affect the Lebreton station...

I wouldn't anticipate that this will change the LeBreton Station at all. (Actually, I doubt it will have any influence on the recommended Bayview Station either, based on how much of a difference any other public input has had to this point. ) The line to the east is the same as the current plan; I just got rid of the diagonal and have the trains go around the box. If anything, the distance between stations is up a bit, but they were quite close before.

As for the Prince of Wales Bridge, there is nothing to stop a ramp from being installed. I would try to pass through the Bayview Station before and after crossing the bridge, but luckily trains are push-me/pull-you creatures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 2:44 AM
the capital urbanite the capital urbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
OK, since the existing Transitway Bridge over the O-Train is to be torn out and replaced, based on the recommended plan, what about just removing it and extending the trench?


This is something I never understood... It seems to be grandfathered in from earlier transitway extension plans and the idea of changing the road/rail grade levels were never looked at a high level.

Why not put both Scott and the transitway under the O-train line. It would be expensive but would spur re-development of that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 12:50 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by the capital urbanite View Post
This is something I never understood... It seems to be grandfathered in from earlier transitway extension plans and the idea of changing the road/rail grade levels were never looked at a high level.

Why not put both Scott and the transitway under the O-train line. It would be expensive but would spur re-development of that area.
I'm not sure what lowering Scott and the Transitway and raising the O-Train would accomplish. Can you elaborate a bit on the benefits?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 1:36 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Their stats are all as of 2007, which is mentioned multiple times including for ridership, car trips removed, modal share, and cost recovery ratio. Why would the cost recovery specifically be different than all the other numbers in that section? The whole article is an update of a 2005 case study.
But Transport Canada didn't collect the stats themselves; they would have got them from the City of Ottawa and the text may well be from the City as well. Portions of it are paraphrasings of the the 2004 report to Council. Moreover, not all the items in that section are updates. The buses saved stat ($7M capital, $2.9M operating) is the exact same one as from the 2004 report to Council. The cost of operating an alternate bus service would be higher in 2007 than in 2004. That's why I called it a mishmash of old and new.

Quote:
For cost recovery, Transport Canada compares 2002 numbers with 2007 numbers. If you look at the 2002 numbers they are exclusive of lease/property taxes on the ROW, etc (TC uses 26% to compare vs 23% cost recovery if they included rent), so it would follow that the 2007 numbers would be the same (although IIRC they bought the corridor in late 2004 so perhaps they just don't pay those things anymore). If they were using 2004 numbers they'd use the 39%.
How is it that cost recovery is less now with higher ridership?

On this page, the 2005 page:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/utsp/otrainlightrailproject.htm
the 36% number is used.

That corresponds to the inclusive of lease/taxes number on this page:
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/trc/2004/07-21/ACS2004-TUP-TRN-0009.htm

So now we get to the 2008 update and 36% appears again, but, as you say, in comparison to the 2002 number of 26%, which was the exclusive number.

So are we to believe that in 2005 Transport Canada used the inclusive (i.e. less favourable) number, which was 36%, but three years later they're now using the exclusive (i.e. more favourable) number, which is coincidentally 36%? In practical terms, that means the recovery ratio went down. Because that's, in effect, what you're saying. The point is I looked at all three sources simultaneously and spotted an obvious rat. You can't get the kind of results being reported there if all the facts are looked at together.

Quote:
Remember that from 2002 to 2007 diesel fuel increased quite a bit, doubling in many places (one possible factor for an increase in costs)
For a small system like the O-Train, fuel is not going to be one of the major factors. There are too many other 'fixed' type costs built-in to the overall cost. To prove the point, from the 2005 Transport Canada Report, we can estimate fuel consumption. It placed O-Train fuel consumption at 1.32 L/km. The two O-Trains operate 17h a day and make some 68 legs per day each of 8 km, or 1088 km/day in total. Saturdays are on weekday schedule, Sundays on 30 min frequency (so 544 km/day). That works out to a little less than 370,000 km/year. At 1.32 L/km, that's a little less than 490,000 L/year. Even if the cost of diesel *varied* (i.e. increased) by as much as $0.50/L in the 2002-2007 period, the effect on the budget is less than $250,000, or less than 6.25% of costs which are in the $4M+ range. That simply can't override a ridership increase that resulted in an increase of revenues of $800,000-$1M. With most of the other costs going the other way, there is only one direction that cost recovery can go: towards a greater recovery ratio. Indeed, if the $2M revenue number is correct and costs are still in the lower $4M+ range, then the recovery ratio is in the high 40s, and that means it beats the bus system, despite having the issues of relatively high overhead and other similar fixed costs. We can even analyze it from the other direction: what would total costs have to be in 2007 for the recovery ratio to be 36% given revenues of $2M? The answer is $5.5M, some $1.5M more or 30-40% higher than in 2004.

The polite way of putting it is that the 2007 36% recovery ratio number used in the 2008 update is a big cloud of fumes.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 1:54 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
I looked at the recommended Tunneys Pasture Station and I'm confused:



From what I see, buses from the Western Transitway do not have an option as to where they go; there is a single path (two lanes in each direction) from the new Transitway ramp (the trench will be partly back-filled) to the exit/entrance at the top-right of the bus area. There is a fence between the lanes and no opportunity to loop around the island.

So a bus coming from the west will drop off passengers at the narrow platform along the edge of the trench and then exit onto Yarrow. If the bus is to go into Lay-up, it turns left onto Yarrow, and then left again into the lay-up area: If it is simply to turn around and head west again, it turns right onto Yarrow, right onto Holland, right onto Scott, right onto the transit bridge, left onto the west-bound lanes, picks up passengers from the island and then down the ramp to the Transitway: If the bus is continuing east, it turns right onto Yarrow, right onto Holland, then left onto Scott.

Buses from the lay-up will enter service by turning into the east-bound lanes as if they have just come up the ramp.

The island needs to be wide to accommodate stairs/escalator/elevator down to an underground tunnel which leads to the train platforms. I am assuming that this below grade crossing will also need to be below the grade of the tracks so people won't need to cross the tracks. Would people like the idea of going down 10 metres underground, or would they rather cross above grade? (I understand that there is a LARGE box culvert under the Transitway so an underpass might not be possible.)

Well, that is what I've figured out so far; the rest I need help with:

The bus facilities appear to be set up for a number of purposes; first, to provide a linear, side platform, bus station along the Transitway; second, to direct buses onto and off of Scott via Holland and the transit bridge; and third, to provide a large bus lay-up area for a small number of buses.

Why is the station designed to facilitate buses continuing east? Is it true that most western buses will continue towards downtown?

Why can't buses simply loop around the island and stay off the road system? Why is the north side of the island not used for pickup/drop-off at all?

Do we really need an underground tunnel, or would a cross-walk from the right side of the island to the existing pedestrian overpass work as well? Maybe a cross-walk at the transit bridge? How are passengers to get to the island if they don't take the tunnel?

Does the Lay-up area look to be a VERY inefficient layout? Do we need all of this area to park buses on?

Should the train platforms be shifted west, starting from the existing pedestrian overpass, so that the new building planned by Public Works can be integrated with the station? The new building was to go where the lay-up area is. Maybe the new building could extend over the train to provide access to both side platforms.

Since this is an interim measure, would you suggest any modifications or alternatives?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1796  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 3:21 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
General ramblings about the recommendations:

Tunneys Pasture:
I hate to see the throw-away cost of partially back-filling the trench, and building a huge bus parking area, but that seems to be the best that Staff can come up with.
Are you sure they're going to be filling-in the trench? I thought they were going to widen it a bit on the north side west of the current access-ramp to provide a straighter path to the upper level.

Quote:
Bayview:
I absolutely agree that the train should be capable of going directly downtown.

I see that there is no plan to try to re-use the existing Transitway Bridge; Staff have decided that there must be a central platform on the upper level so the tracks are too far apart.
Nothing like spending more money needlessly. Surely the bridge could be widened to provide side-platforms. So long as the lower platform is central, then the cost of things like stairs and escalators won't run out of control.

Quote:
If the bridge is not being used, is there any reason to have the rail elevated over the O-Train track? Why not simply continue the trench and keep all of the lines below grade? This would allow for a single platform for the two interlined routes. Building over the train lines would be much easier if they were already sub grade.

I see they have kept the big (and enlarged by the looks of it) bus lay-up.

(I know they just ran a new water main along Bayview, but it is pressurized so it can be lowered here.)
You're right - if they're going to wipe out the bridge then they might as well do something useful. Keeping the east-west line above the O-Train line would allow the latter to continue to be used for interprovincial rail freight with less interference, but since the City doesn't seem to care about such things I doubt that's a consideration. One other reason for keeping some degree of grade separation is to prevent congestion due to trains changing tracks (i.e. a westbound-to-southbound train blocking an eastbound train) but this can be alleviated with a single-track flyover. Trains crossing each other's paths at a diamond (like the O-Train and VIA trains do) is much less of a problem since the time taken to cross a diamond is a lot less (i.e. less than 10 seconds) than the time taken to switch tracks.

I read on another blog from someone who had talked with the consultant that at peak periods, if the downtown tunnel is approaching capacity, then the N-S trains won't necessarily go downtown since they'll only be 2-car trains and we may not be able to afford to have 2-car trains taking up space that could be used by a 6-car east-west train. This is all the more of a consideration given that the small number of downtown stations limits the number of trains that can serve the downtown at any one time.

In a way then, it's almost pointless to have the ability to route trains from the south into downtown.

Quote:
LeBreton:
Why is the line so far from the canal? Why not run it where the Transitway currently is? The farther south the line is, the higher the road needs to go, unless the track is in a trench, and the more developable land is used.

I still say the line should run straight from LeBreton east under Slater instead of through the reversing curves to get to Albert.
Perhaps they want to redevelop the side of the inlet canal and open it up for public use. Oh, wait, that would be putting people first... can't do that. The funny thing is that I was under the impression that the NCC had refused to release any land south of the Transitway and that any future rapid transit would have to use the Transitway alignment.

Are you saying that the 'cross-country' alignment should start from Slater rather than Albert? That would seem to make more sense as it would reduce the number of curves - and it would also open up more possibilities for adding in an extra station.

Personally, I still think they should just go under Queen all the way in a shallow tunnel.

Quote:
Downtown General:
When I look at the 300m catchment circles, they don't touch: This means that the stations are more than 600m apart. In fact, the 500m ring only just reaches the 300m circles for some of the stations. I think the spacing to too great.

Campus:
I agree that the tunnel should continue as far as possible south: In fact, I would like to see it continue to Hurdman - but that won't happen.

In the Technical Briefing document, the position of the Campus Station is roughly in its current location. The Station Location Map shows it as being farther north. I don't know which is correct, but I suspect it will be in roughly the current location.

Lees:
Apparently the Lees Station 'NEEDS' to remain within the current corridor so that no contaminated land is disturbed. Personally, I would like to see them clean up the area instead of ignoring the problem.

I do find it odd that the station appears to be moved north, but they are balancing the distances to the neighbouring stations.

Also, the Robinson area is going to be re-developed sometime.

Hurdman:
It is a shame that they are ensuring that the S-E Transitway never gets converted to rail.

Train:
It looks as if all three structures will need to be replaced.

This station will cost more than they are expecting: The plan, from what I heard, is to bury the station so that the lawn can be restored in front of the VIA Station. If the Baseline Station is $207M, then expect this area to be about $100M. (Of course, the cost could nix the plans to replace the lawn.)

If three structures and a tunnel station is to be built, why not move the line to provide better access to the Train Yards?

Why not go one step further and put it under the tracks/platform nearest the station itself? It would align better with the bridge over the Vanier Parkway and make for a better curve on the east side.

Quote:
St.Laurent:
Nothing to say about this one.

Cyrville:
Nothing to say about this one.

Blair:
I think this is going to be a very expensive station, and even more expensive to extend the line. This may be the east end equivelent of Baseline Station.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1797  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 3:38 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
I was talking to a fellow who has done a bit of consulting and he shared an interesting thing with me:

Public consultations are not to get new or better ideas or to make any changes to an existing plan or idea. Consultations are held to gather a list of the questions and concerns that the public has so that reasons, and justifications can be developed to better support the existing plan when it is released.


Now I understand.
Yep... your only real option is to get to the councillors and/or the senior government officials that pay the bills. Consultation in Ottawa with respect to transportation is still carried out in the "we the engineers know best" mentality.

Figure out where we are on the ladder of citizen participation:

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1798  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 3:50 PM
Ryersonian Ryersonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
I looked at the recommended Tunneys Pasture Station and I'm confused:



From what I see, buses from the Western Transitway do not have an option as to where they go; there is a single path (two lanes in each direction) from the new Transitway ramp (the trench will be partly back-filled) to the exit/entrance at the top-right of the bus area. There is a fence between the lanes and no opportunity to loop around the island.

So a bus coming from the west will drop off passengers at the narrow platform along the edge of the trench and then exit onto Yarrow. If the bus is to go into Lay-up, it turns left onto Yarrow, and then left again into the lay-up area: If it is simply to turn around and head west again, it turns right onto Yarrow, right onto Holland, right onto Scott, right onto the transit bridge, left onto the west-bound lanes, picks up passengers from the island and then down the ramp to the Transitway: If the bus is continuing east, it turns right onto Yarrow, right onto Holland, then left onto Scott.

Buses from the lay-up will enter service by turning into the east-bound lanes as if they have just come up the ramp.

The island needs to be wide to accommodate stairs/escalator/elevator down to an underground tunnel which leads to the train platforms. I am assuming that this below grade crossing will also need to be below the grade of the tracks so people won't need to cross the tracks. Would people like the idea of going down 10 metres underground, or would they rather cross above grade? (I understand that there is a LARGE box culvert under the Transitway so an underpass might not be possible.)

Well, that is what I've figured out so far; the rest I need help with:

The bus facilities appear to be set up for a number of purposes; first, to provide a linear, side platform, bus station along the Transitway; second, to direct buses onto and off of Scott via Holland and the transit bridge; and third, to provide a large bus lay-up area for a small number of buses.

Why is the station designed to facilitate buses continuing east? Is it true that most western buses will continue towards downtown?

Why can't buses simply loop around the island and stay off the road system? Why is the north side of the island not used for pickup/drop-off at all?

Do we really need an underground tunnel, or would a cross-walk from the right side of the island to the existing pedestrian overpass work as well? Maybe a cross-walk at the transit bridge? How are passengers to get to the island if they don't take the tunnel?

Does the Lay-up area look to be a VERY inefficient layout? Do we need all of this area to park buses on?

Should the train platforms be shifted west, starting from the existing pedestrian overpass, so that the new building planned by Public Works can be integrated with the station? The new building was to go where the lay-up area is. Maybe the new building could extend over the train to provide access to both side platforms.

Since this is an interim measure, would you suggest any modifications or alternatives?
Great questions? This looks totally ineffcient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1799  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 3:53 PM
Ryersonian Ryersonian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Yep... your only real option is to get to the councillors and/or the senior government officials that pay the bills. Consultation in Ottawa with respect to transportation is still carried out in the "we the engineers know best" mentality.

Figure out where we are on the ladder of citizen participation:

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

Fantastic link!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1800  
Old Posted May 5, 2009, 6:36 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Will that leave the Prince of Wales Bridge essentially unuseable especially as a possible future replacement of Rapidbus?
How about rotating the station a bit more like this:



Does that allay your fears?

That also adds more to the green lands and makes the bus access easier. The curves are at the ends of the station where slow speed will be a must any way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.