Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

This probably belongs in the other transit thread, but here goes anyway.

It's stimulus-related:


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/pdf/tableproject0605.pdf
O-Train Corridor Upgrades (p.5)

This project involves the rehabilitation of the North O-Train connecting track, complete track resurfacing, removal of the switch at Bayview curve, new switch at 214 A and tie replacement at the Sawmill Creek structure.

Total: $900,000 [3-way split]


It's a bit overstated to call it a significant upgrade. Rail grinding doesn't even count as an upgrade. They might also do some other random tie replacement and localized ballasting (kind of hard to do the first without also doing the second...) where there are dips from settlement (particularly needed around the north portal of the tunnel). This is all really just routine stuff that should be done anyway and represents some of the only maintenance work that has been done since the CWR was installed in 2003 (they took the opportunity to do tie replacements then in addition to the CWR). The switch at Bayview will practically pay for itself through reduced rail, wheel and brake wear as well as through fuel savings.

[Deez]

FYI

Based on their presentations at the Technology Forum yesterday, 2 out of the 3 manufacturers that attended felt that Ottawa should be going with metro technology for the main network spine. I would assume that at least part of that is because it may be more financially lucrative for them to do so, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Alstom - Recommended fully automated metro

Bombardier - Pushed their ART technology (same as in Vancouver, Scarborough, etc). The presenter kept citing the "gift" that was the grade-separated transitway as a huge opportunity for cost savings. Apparently it didn't occur to him that it would have been cheaper to have just built a rail system along that ROW in the first place...

Kinki Sharyo - Made no recommendations. Interestingly, the company's policy in North America is to build rolling stock in the city their vending to. That means that the capital cost is inflated (thus explaining their huge overbid on the NS LRT project), but many local jobs are created and mechanical expertise for maintenance on the rolling stock is more easily acquired.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Deez

FYI

Based on their presentations at the Technology Forum yesterday, 2 out of the 3 manufacturers that attended felt that Ottawa should be going with metro technology for the main network spine. I would assume that at least part of that is because it may be more financially lucrative for them to do so, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Alstom - Recommended fully automated metro

Bombardier - Pushed their ART technology (same as in Vancouver, Scarborough, etc). The presenter kept citing the "gift" that was the grade-separated transitway as a huge opportunity for cost savings. Apparently it didn't occur to him that it would have been cheaper to have just built a rail system along that ROW in the first place...

Kinki Sharyo - Made no recommendations. Interestingly, the company's policy in North America is to build rolling stock in the city their vending to. That means that the capital cost is inflated (thus explaining their huge overbid on the NS LRT project), but many local jobs are created and mechanical expertise for maintenance on the rolling stock is more easily acquired.

This "gift" is also why Urbanaut makes sense. Small, lightweight, fully automated trains on segregated ROW.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Deez

FYI

Based on their presentations at the Technology Forum yesterday, 2 out of the 3 manufacturers that attended felt that Ottawa should be going with metro technology for the main network spine. I would assume that at least part of that is because it may be more financially lucrative for them to do so, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Alstom - Recommended fully automated metro

Bombardier - Pushed their ART technology (same as in Vancouver, Scarborough, etc). The presenter kept citing the "gift" that was the grade-separated transitway as a huge opportunity for cost savings. Apparently it didn't occur to him that it would have been cheaper to have just built a rail system along that ROW in the first place...

Kinki Sharyo - Made no recommendations. Interestingly, the company's policy in North America is to build rolling stock in the city their vending to. That means that the capital cost is inflated (thus explaining their huge overbid on the NS LRT project), but many local jobs are created and mechanical expertise for maintenance on the rolling stock is more easily acquired.

If I were to hand a tender out right now, it would be to Kinki Sharyo for their LF LRT. The local jobs created in the Ottawa area would be a plus, and their design is also heavily used elsewhere in North America.

[m0nkyman]

My heart would be to agree with you, but the cost may be high enough that it wasn't justifiable...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

FYI

Based on their presentations at the Technology Forum yesterday, 2 out of the 3 manufacturers that attended felt that Ottawa should be going with metro technology for the main network spine. I would assume that at least part of that is because it may be more financially lucrative for them to do so, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Told you so. The project in its configuration is already a metro system, it would probably be cheaper to have that than LRT. And with the Carling streetcar probably out, there's no reasons to go with LRT. Tunnel is cheaper with a metro than LRT too. With shorter stations, who knows, there might be 3 stations instead of 2 in the CBD.

[AuxTown]

Tunnel is cheaper with a metro than LRT too. With shorter stations, who knows, there might be 3 stations instead of 2 in the CBD.

Excellent point. We have all been critisizing that aspect of the current plan and this may be a way to make an extra station financially viable.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Told you so. The project in its configuration is already a metro system, it would probably be cheaper to have that than LRT. And with the Carling streetcar probably out, there's no reasons to go with LRT. Tunnel is cheaper with a metro than LRT too. With shorter stations, who knows, there might be 3 stations instead of 2 in the CBD.

I've since changed my opinion, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'll see anything other than 100% low floor LRT.

What makes you think Carling is out? It's in the TMP.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Told you so. The project in its configuration is already a metro system, it would probably be cheaper to have that than LRT.

Care to explain why that would be the case?

And with the Carling streetcar probably out, there's no reasons to go with LRT.

Carling will still have LRT of some sort. If we do go with a light metro, then doing so just bolsters the case for on-street LRT downtown as that would give the Carling line somewhere to go.

Tunnel is cheaper with a metro than LRT too. With shorter stations, who knows, there might be 3 stations instead of 2 in the CBD.

That I doubt. There would have to be 50% savings for each station from making them shorter to save enough to build a third, something I find unlikely - but that's really beside the point. Cost isn't the issue. The tunnel was made deeper and longer - both of which ramped up costs - without blinking. The powers-that-be have convinced themselves that two stations are enough and that's what we'll get.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Deez

I've since changed my opinion, but I think it's pretty unlikely we'll see anything other than 100% low floor LRT.

What makes you think Carling is out? It's in the TMP.

Well in the review document, they can't find vehicles long enough for the stations and to meet the demand, so that can change, it will all depend on the bids.

If Carling is used as the main trunk line, it won't work as a streetcar because of the low headways.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Dado

Care to explain why that would be the case?



Carling will still have LRT of some sort. If we do go with a light metro, then doing so just bolsters the case for on-street LRT downtown as that would give the Carling line somewhere to go.

LRT in it's own ROW is light metro, which was recommended by the "experts" from the start, same as the Carling to DT to Montréal Rd streetcar.

That I doubt. There would have to be 50% savings for each station from making them shorter to save enough to build a third, something I find unlikely - but that's really beside the point. Cost isn't the issue. The tunnel was made deeper and longer - both of which ramped up costs - without blinking. The powers-that-be have convinced themselves that two stations are enough and that's what we'll get.

I think you forgot that it's not only two stations that bring savings, but 12. If the platforms are 120m instead of 180m, that's more than substantial savings. The access with 120m stations would be longer downtown, hence the case for an additional one.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The marginal cost of longer stations that are on the ground, and don't need reconstruction of the trench to straighten it out to fit the longer length, isn't very high. Not when your long deep underground stations are going to come in north of $100 million each. Likely even more.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Franky

This "gift" is also why Urbanaut makes sense. Small, lightweight, fully automated trains on segregated ROW.

Oh my...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ The marginal cost of longer stations that are on the ground, and don't need reconstruction of the trench to straighten it out to fit the longer length, isn't very high. Not when your long deep underground stations are going to come in north of $100 million each. Likely even more.

Nothing is set in stone so far. It can turn out like Vancouer where they take a cut and cover approach. Plus savings af 5M$ for the shorter plaftforms wouldn't be unheard of. Add 3M$ savings per km for third rail instead of catheneray wires and your new station is paid.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Franky

No surprise, they have screened out all valid routes but the one they were supposed to end up with - typical BS.

Plus, short notice and little (zero?) advertising means this process is being rammed through.

So, I have to give some credit to MH and IBI. They have not only screened out the alternative but the "preferred" route as well. It would have been difficult to justify their "preferred" route because there were more obstacles to this route than the alternative, so they are both out.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

So, I have to give some credit to MH and IBI. They have not only screened out the alternative but the "preferred" route as well. It would have been difficult to justify their "preferred" route because there were more obstacles to this route than the alternative, so they are both out.

So, what is left then?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

So, what is left then?

The Bus Garage is in the way of making the Ottawa Train Yard route practical. It should be using the abandoned rail ROW and so avoid the Russel and St.Laurent intersections. As it stands, it's not much of a BRT route.

The AVTC is to service the new developments next to the Hospital far into the future.

[Dado]

Thank you for the prompt photo, Franky.


So am I seeing this right? Two disconnected corridors... and completely defeating the purpose of trying to serve the Hospital district, or, rather, the people who work there. In the TMP background documents, it was shown that the single biggest non-downtown-oriented travel demand line was from Orleans to Alta Vista and now this scheme won't serve much of that.


There's absolutely no point to connecting Blair with Hurdman via a bunch of industrial yards. And it goes via Innes rather than the rail corridor across the 417, so more pointless expense there too.

What a pointless exercise. This will drop to the bottom of the priority list and then, when sanity finally prevails, a whole new study will have to be carried out to establish a sensible route.


Following the AVTC might be of some use... if it goes somewhere. Perhaps the LRT line to Riverside South should use that route. At least then the hospital district would get LRT.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Thank you for the prompt photo, Franky.


So am I seeing this right? Two disconnected corridors... and completely defeating the purpose of trying to serve the Hospital district, or, rather, the people who work there. In the TMP background documents, it was shown that the single biggest non-downtown-oriented travel demand line was from Orleans to Alta Vista and now this scheme won't serve much of that.


There's absolutely no point to connecting Blair with Hurdman via a bunch of industrial yards. And it goes via Innes rather than the rail corridor across the 417, so more pointless expense there too.

What a pointless exercise. This will drop to the bottom of the priority list and then, when sanity finally prevails, a whole new study will have to be carried out to establish a sensible route.


Following the AVTC might be of some use... if it goes somewhere. Perhaps the LRT line to Riverside South should use that route. At least then the hospital district would get LRT.

Apparently, the Hospital people are not interested in the BRT route, but the trainyards people are.

2 things I've hear, not sure they relate. 1) they said a route off of Innes would be expensive. 2) they did not want the route in the marsh land along the rail corridor south of Innes.

The Ottawa Train Yards route is a good one. It is inexpensive and will cater to a large complex of Office and Retail space, not to mention the Bus Depot if they fix that.

They say the BRT (or LRT) route along the AVTC won't be needed for a long time after the AVTC is built which they expect will be in the next 5 years. The AVTC is about cars, not transit. The Hospital complex does not care about rapid transit. Perhaps because they make more money from parking fees.

[lrt's friend]

Good grief! Is that the plan for the Hospital-Innes corridor?

Are we talking about just bus lanes on Innes? That's what it looks like. So, are we getting away from segregated ROWs, and how practical for later conversion to LRT?

I guess we don't want to deal with that difficult section next to the Perley Home so we just avoid it.

Funny place for a station on Innes where the Via Rail overpass is. It is really in between things with poor access to anything.

As far as the AVTC connecting to Riverside South, check a map, this is way too far east and how would you get it there? This would inevitably be far more expensive than using the existing proposed route using the old CPR ROW. LRT on the AVTC could eventually connect to Findlay Creek and Greely, which is directly to the south as those areas further grow. If we ever want to do this, we better protect a ROW, before the area gets too built up.

For the life of me, connecting the Hospital complex to the east seemed to be a priority. No wonder I am losing interest in this whole process.