Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ptac/2009/09-17/agendaindex18.htm
Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur les piétons
et le transport en commun
AGENDA 18
ORDRE DU JOUR 18
Thursday, 17 September 2009, 7:00 p.m.
ITEMS OF BUSINESS
POINTS À L’ORDRE DU JOUR
2. CONSIDERATION OF MEMBER EADE’S PAPER ON
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN OTTAWA TRANSIT TUNNEL
EXAMEN DU DOCUMENT SUR LES AMÉLIORATIONS AU TUNNEL DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN DANS LE CENTRE-VILLE D'OTTAWA SOUMIS PAR MEMBRE EADE
Member / Membre R. Eade
[ 10 min. ]
Any details Richard? Can you post your presentation after the meeting?
|
No need to wait for Thursday. Here is basically what I intend to present. I don’t think there will be any surprises in what I’m going to suggest on Thursday evening. Most of the ideas have been posted here already. My point in bringing them before the PTAC is to try to get staff and Councilors thinking that there might be other options. I am beginning with the assumptions that there will be a tunnel and that it will carry rail.
These suggestions are not meant to be an all or nothing option. This presentation is a collection of ideas which can be implemented on their own or collectively. If one idea is deemed to have merit, but not another, then the one can be further examined by Staff and perhaps integrated into the DOTT plan.
Starting from the west, I will be suggesting that a modified Tunneys Pasture Station NOT be the temporary terminus of the LRT; instead, I would like to see the line continued to Westboro Station.
Notice that the bus ramp (blue) is west of Churchill; leaving space for track switching and train storage – something which doesn’t seem to have been taken into account for the Tunneys Pasture plan since there is only about 120 metres between the station and the bus ramp. In Staff’s plan, the only switching room will be east of the station so only one side platform will be used for both directions.
At Westboro, it might be possible to ‘borrow’ some of the existing parking lot from Health Canada for temporary bus lay-up space; thereby freeing up the existing ramp space both at Westboro and Tunneys for redevelopment.
Although it is not clearly shown in the illustration, there is a hydro distribution area immediately beside the Westboro Station (between the station and the Metropolis Tower) – which is not the case for Tunneys Pasture.
The increased length of the rail line will help make it more viable operationally; and will justify more people being transferred to the train so fewer buses will continue east of Westboro - none ideally. Conversely, Staff plans to still run buses along the residential section of Scott east of Tunneys to avoid passengers having to transfer to the train only to transfer at the next stop or two.
Tunneys Pasture is almost exclusively a commuter destination with very little full-day ridership potential whereas Westboro Station provides train access for the pedestrian-oriented Westboro Village and convenient rapid transit for the relatively densely populated areas north of the station.
The Consultant did not look any farther than Tunneys Pasture for a terminus since that was the extent of their mandate. I, however, did not have such a restriction.
There may be opposition to extending the line to Westboro since it could be viewed as completely abandoning any chance of routing the train along Carling.
I will propose that the configuration around Bayview could be simplified by NOT rebuilding the Transit Bridge over the O-Train tracks and a bi-level station.
In the Staff plan, it is clear that the existing Transitway Bridge is not wide enough to facilitate an upper level station with a central platform; this bridge will be removed and rebuilt. Also, there will be a fairly long ‘tail’ of ramp structure continuing east of the Station so that the tracks can merge.
I will be suggesting that if the bridge needs to be removed, then it should not be rebuilt and the tracks should be merged before the Bayview Station. This will require a new structure for the train to pass under Bayview Road. (In the above diagram I have pulled the station south by running the train under Scott as well, but this would not be necessary; it is just an illustration of how the station could have direct access to both sides of Scott.)
This has the potential of simplifying the system geometry and reducing its construction cost. It also consolidates lands which have future development potential and maintains the link to Gatineau. However, there will likely be objections to having to move the recently laid water main under Bayview Road.
My next suggestion is that the tunnel enter from the west under Slater and not, as Staff recommend, under Albert.
Staff has tried to avoid running the train under the City-owned Escarpment Lands and instead recommends that an expensive structure be built to run the train along under Old Wellington Street, which will be used as the collector for the new towers. Also, taking the track north by one block to Albert creates reversing curves in the line at approximately where the train should be traveling its fastest.
By taking the train along a virtually straight path from LeBreton under Slater, there arises a perfect opportunity to fully integrate the new station with the new Central Library Building. Integration can also include the power supply vault as well as all ventilation equipment and ducting.
As well, having the station under the Library can allow one access to be directly at the Ottawa Technical High School Development Lands and be closer to the majority of the residential towers which lie south of Slater.
Continuing across downtown, I strongly suggest that there be another downtown station added.
You will notice that I have also altered the route a bit in the above map, but that is not the key point here; the extra station is. An extra station will distribute the passenger loads, and provide closer, more convenient access to the system and to the riders’ destinations.
In my mind, this is a key point. It is one which will be very difficult to implement later, if not impossible. The current spacing of the Staff recommended stations does not leave sufficient room for an extra station to be added once it is found to be needed. An extra station is an added cost, but I believe it is not a place to scrimp.
There will probably be resistance to adding an extra station based on its cost and the fear that it will slow down the system. Staff will declare that their analysis shows that the downtown is well covered by stations: In fact, it is minimally covered.
The route change in the previous diagram was made to avoid a deep bedrock valley under the north end of the Rideau Centre.
By moving the tunnel to the south, a technically challenging and high risk area can be avoided. It also respects the historical passenger traffic patterns which have been built up over decades. This prevents the potential of overcrowding Rideau Street with the passengers from both the ‘local’ and the ‘regional’ routes and maintains the functionality of having both a Mackenzie-King Station and a Laurier Station.
It might be brought up that the north station allows direct vertical transfers between the trains and the buses on Rideau. If the extra station is added under the War Memorial, the vertical transfer can be done there where there are wide sidewalks, relieving Rideau Street of overcrowding.
Another thing to consider about the realignment as suggested is that it could help minimize surface disruption during tunnel and station construction.
By restricting the majority of digging to areas which are currently green-space, undeveloped, or to be redeveloped and minimizing the digging within road-ways, existing traffic and transit can be better maintained.
For example, if the station were dug as part of the digging of the new Central Library Building foundation, Albert Street would not need to be closed for an extended period of time. Closing Albert will severely affect both traffic and transit.
Also, there should be better coordination between the construction of the rapid transit system and other projects, public and private. By thinking ahead and planning, costs can be reduced and less problem mitigation will be needed.
I am also suggesting that the tunnel be extended east at least as far as Hurdman. This removes a major physical barrier which cuts the Lees area into two.
By extending the tunnel under the river, the construction of the $40 million Nicholas Connector Bridge is not needed for buses since they can continue to use the existing Transitway Bridge. Once the change-over to rail has been completed, the Transitway and the bridge can be released to general traffic as an extension of King Edward Avenue. This ties in very well with the preferred option of a redevelopment charett done for the Mann-Nicholas Gateway area. This option called for a second underpass under the 417 but this would not be necessary if the existing Transitway underpass was available. By reviewing the plans for the surrounding areas, the new rail system can be used to facilitate redevelopment and remove barriers.
Staff will argue that digging through the Lees and Hurdman areas will disturb contaminated soil. To that I would refer them to the City’s Brownfield Policy which aims to rehabilitate contaminated areas around rapid transit stations. The clean-up will be done sometime, why not now?
Probably the easiest and most efficient method of extending the tunnel is to use two tunnel boring machines (TBMs); one would be specialized for boring through hard rock; and the other an earth pressure balanced TBM (EPB TBM) which can tunnel through loose material, leaving a tunnel liner for support.
By using two specialized TBMs, the tunnels can be aligned optimally, while minimizing the surface disruption for traffic and transit.
Lastly, I suggest that the probable location of the new LRT Maintenance Facility might prompt a review of the Staff recommended alignment between the Train Station and St. Laurent Station.
There might be a good case for bringing the train south of the VIA Station so that it can better interface with the Cumberland Transitway Connector, the Train Yards retail and office area, as well as the new Train Yard. Another possibility is a future station to serve the Federally-owned Tremblay Lands.
It should be stressed that these are, for the most part, independent ideas. For example, the train could be extended to Westboro without any need to change the alignment east of Hurdman. These ideas may be accepted or rejected individually. However, I think that the suggested changes are based on new information that was not generally available when Council approved the Staff recommended DOTT alignment. Given this new information, I believe that the DOTT plan can be improved for the benefit of the riders; current and future.
Prev
Linear Mode
